F 199 
.n86 
Copy 1 



X 



FOR A GREATER DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 



SPEECHES 



HON. EDWARD De V. MORRELL, 

(A Alember of the Committee on the District of Columbia) 

ON 

ABUSES AND NEEDED REFORMS 

IN THE 

GOVERNMENT 

OF THE 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

IN REFERENCE TO 

STREET EXTENSIONS, EXPENDITURES, ASSESSMENTS, 
TAXATION, AND RECEIPTS, 

DELIVERED IN THE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

First Session Fifty-ninth Congress. 



"WASHINGTON. 

1906. 



X 



a 



SPEECHES 

OF 

HON. EDWARD DE V. MOERELL. 



Monday, January 29, 1906. 

The House having under consideration the bill (H R. 7048) chang- 
ing names of Pierce place, Blake street, Swann street, Cedar street or 
place, and Oregon avenue to Samson street — 

Mr. MORRELL said : 

Mr. Speaker : As a member of the District Committee I have 
for some time been impressed with the fact that the present 
system of street extension in the District of Columbia is unequal 
and incongruous. Long before the discussion of January 8, 
1906, over the Kalorama avenue bill was precipitated upon the 
House I had begun an investigation not only of the system of 
the District, but of systems of other cities of the United States. 
The motive which led me to do this was that I might present a 
bill for a general law which would remedy these incongruities 
and inequalities. 

I now desire to present, as comprehensively as possible, the 
weaknesses of the present system and to outline the principles 
upon which a general bill should be drawn. 

The Washington system of street extension rests upon four 
distinct bodies of law. These are : » 

1. The general highway act of 1893. 

2. A series of special street-extension acts. 

3. The Code of the District of Columbia. 

4. Provisions of general appropriation bills. 

I. The general highway act of 1893 is a very elaborate law. 
It provides that the Commissioners of the District of Columbia 
shall prepare a plan for the extension of a permanent system of 
highways over all that portion of said District not included 
within the limits of the city of Washington and Georgetown. It 
requires that this system shall conform to the street plan of the 
city of Washington as nearly as practicable; that the streets 
shall not be less than 90 feet in width nor more than 160 feet ; 
that the Commissioners shall map out each and every street 
extension area planned by themselves and submit this for 
approval to a commission, consisting of — at the time — the Sec- 
retary of War, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Chief of 

7021 3 



Engineers; when approved, this map shall be.vome tfie plan for 
the boundaries and dimensions of all the streets, avenues, and 
roads in the said area ; that they shall then proceed to condemn 
the land needed for such streets, avenues, and roads, and which 
may not have been dedicated by the owners thereof, in the 
supreme court of the District of Columbia sitting as a district 
court of the United States ; that a jury of seven shall, under 
the direction of this court, ascertain the damages occasioned by 
each extension, assess one-half of these against the land bene- 
fited and one-half against the revenues of the District of Colum- 
bia. It provides for an appeal from the decision of this court 
sitting as a district court to the same court in general terra. 

The jury under this act is specifically required to assess the 
damages caused by the opening of any highway against other 
property which it shall ascertain and determine to have been 
benefited to a proportional part of the whole of said one-half of 
the damages. In general terms this law may be said to be a good 
law, and had it been rigidly adhered to by Congress its effects 
would have been beneficial. On account, however, of the appeal 
provision which it contains, vigorous objections were urged 
against it by interested parties, and out of this grew a flourish- 
ing body of special laws passed by the Congress of the United 
States. 

II. Very soon after the passage of the general highway act 
Congress was importuned to pass special acts for the opening 
of certain streets, and entered upon a career of street legisla- 
tion which has produced something more than twenty special 
acts. After four or five years of experiment with this species 
of legislation, an effort was made to arrange a form which 
should become a model for all succeeding bills, and which we 
have been told in this discussion did become a model. In fact, 
it has, I believe, been stated upon this floor, that this particular 
bill follows this prearranged form word for word. The diffi- 
culty is to ascertain which of these numerous special acts was 
the model. As I shall show, they are all alike except in the ten 
or eleven sections which define the court machinery and the 
modus operandi by which the decisions of the court are carried 
into effect. They differ in almost every material provision 
which makes for or against what might be considered wise 
legislation. Some of the bills require a dedication of from two- 
thirds to three-fourths of the land required as an antecedent 
condition ; one bill requires the payment of a money considera- 
tion as collateral before proceedings shall begin ; all the others 
require neither a dedication of land nor a payment of money. 
But the main question, Who shall pay for these improvements? 

7021 



Is answered by these acts in an absurdly contradictory manner. 
Some of them require that all the damages ascertained to be 
due shall be assessed against other laud benefited; in other 
cases only 50 per cent of the damages is to be so assessed ; and 
in others a discretion is given to tlie Conmiissioners by which an 
amount less than 50 per cent may be assessed. 

In arranging for the deferred assessments some of these acts 
give two equal annual assessments and charge 10 per cent an- 
nual interest thereon ; others give five years at 4 per cent an- 
nual interest, and still others four years at 5 per cent annual 
interest. 

All of these special acts apply to one particular part of the 
city and ignore all other parts. They all. up to the present, 
have applied to that region lying between Tennallytown road and 
the Soldiers' Home, north of Rock Creek, or in the neighbor- 
hood of the National Park. It may be remarked that this region 
is the one in which the speculative interests have predominated 
since 1888. 

I have investigated the thirteen special acts passed by the 
Fifty-eighth Congress in order that I might show the differences 
which I have just pointed out. These acts are : 

1. The Wrights road act of April 22, 1904, which requires 
that the entire amount of damages shall be assessed against the 
lands benefited in two equal annual installments, with interest 
at 10 per cent per annum. 

2. The act for the extension of Twenty-third street from S to 
California, April 22, 1904, followed the preceding act in every 
particular, but required the jury to Include the expenses of the 
condemnation proceedings in the damages. The deferred assess- 
ments weie five, carrying interest at 4 per cent. 

3. The Kalorama avenue act. April 28, 1904, did not require 
the assessment of all the damages, nor even 50 per cent, against 
lands benefited, but gave the Commissioners discretion to accept 
a less percentage. 

4. The Euclid avenue act, April 28, 1904, followed the pre- 
ceding. 

5. The V street act, April 28, 1904, required the parties inter- 
ested to deposit $1,250 as an antecedent condition. It assessed 
the entire damage against the benefits and provided for five as- 
sessments at 4 per cent. 

6. The act opening highways on the east and west sides of the 
Zoological Park, April 28, 1904, followed the Kalorama avenue 
act of the same date. 

7. The Albemarle street extension act, April 28, 1904, is in 
the same form. 

7021 



6 

8. The Wyoming avenue act. April 28, 1904, required all the 
damages to he assessed as benefits. 

9. The T street extension. March 3, 1905, assessed 50 per 
cent or less of the damages against beneficiaries. 

10. The M street extension act, March 3, 1905, required a 
dedication of at least two-thirds of the land needed for the exten- 
sion ; assessed all the damages against benefits, but exempted the 
remaining parts of all the lands owned by the dedicants from 
assessment. The assessments were two, at 10 per cent per annum. 

11. The Nineteenth street extension act, March 3, 1905, as- 
sessed the ejitire damages against the benefits and made two 
assessments at 10 per cent. 

12. The Kalorama extension act, March 3, 1905, assessed the 
entire damages against the benefits and made five assessments 
at 4 per cent. 

13. The Rittenhouse street extension act, March 3, 1905, re- 
quired a dedication of at least two-thirds of the land, assessed 
the entire amount of damages against benefits, exempted dedi- 
cants from further assessment, and made two equal annual 
assessments at 10 per cent. 

In the first session of the Fifty-sixth Congress the Sixteenth 
street extension act was pased. This required a dedication of 
three- fourths of all the land and that 50 per cent of the damages 
should be assessed against abutters, but not against the dedi- 
cants. These dedicants gave about 50 acres of agricultural land 
as the price for the enormous exemption which they received 
in the act referred to. It is a strange commentary upon this 
character of legislation, that if the act requires an assessment 
of all the damages against benefits the jui'y apparently has no 
trouble in finding a full 100 per cent of beneficiaries, and if 
the act requires 50 per cent the jury apparently finds this with 
equal ease. In other words, a jury seems to have no difficulty 
in finding whatever percentage of benefits may be demanded by 
the act in the property abutting, adjacent, or contiguous to the 
improvement. But in the Sixteenth street extension the jury 
broke down. Although required to find but 50 per cent of bene- 
fited property after exempting the dedicants, it could find but 
about 13 per cent of beneficiaries. 

The damages assessed by the jury were $729,952. 

The benefits were $108,834. 

Although the act required that 50 per cent of the damages 
should be assessed against beneficiaries, under the discretionary 
power given the Commissioners this finding was approved and 
this balance $620,018 was oast one-half on the abutters who 
were not dedicants and one-half upon the District of Columbia. 
7021 



It iinist be remembered — and this Is most Important — that, in 
addition to the damages set out, the entire cost of grading and 
paving roadways is borne by the taxpayers at large, and that but 
only one half the cost of sidewalks is assessed on abutting prop- 
erty owners, the other half being borne by the public. 

I want it distinctly understood that I do not find fault with the 
dedicants for taking advantage of existing laws regarding dedi- 
cants, nor do I find fault with those who bought and own the 
property through which these streets have been opened, but I 
do most emphatically find fault with and condemn the laws 
themselves and this character of legislation. 

III. The third body of underlying law in the matter of street 
opening is the Code of the District of Columbia. On February 
23, 1905, an act amending the Code of the District of Columbia 
was passed, which enacted a general law as to alleys and minor 
streets. It empowered the Commissioners to open, extend, 
widen, or straighten alleys or minor streets upon petition of 
more than half of the owners of real estate in the square or 
block, and limited the width of the minor street to not less than 
40 nor more than 60 feet; it authorized condemnations by a 
jury of five persons, to he selected and charged as in the pre- 
ceding acts ; it authorized all damages to be assessed as benefits 
and made four deferred payments or assessments carrying 4 
per cent. 

One great difficulty in the oj-ening of new streets under the 
Washington system is the modus operandi of the initial pro- 
ceedings. Too much has been left in the initiative to interested 
parties and too little to the owners of the real estate of the 
District to be improved. There is a system vei*y much in favor 
among American cities very much like the provision set out in 
the Code. That provision is the one which authorizes the cre- 
ation of separate street-impro\ement districts. These districts 
are to be found throughout the American Union and have con- 
tributed no little to the solution of the vexed question of sti'eet 
opening and the original or first cost of street improvement. 

The citizens of the District of Columbia, and by this I mean 
those whose residence is here and not elsewhere, are deprived 
of the right of sufi'rage. To give them tlae right to form special 
improvement districts, either in the old city or in the outlying 
suburbs, would, in my opinion, not onfy add to their privileges 
as citizens, but would contribute largely to the improvement of 
the streets of the District. The provision of the Code limits 
the street improvement, based upon the petition of more than 
•lalf the owners of real estate, to a square or block and to 

7021 



8 

minor streets. It should be enlarged to permit a majority of 
the real estate owners along any street or system of streets to 
so petition and to form a special improvement district, the 
entire expense of which shall be cast upon the property of that 
district and assessed at not more than 2 per cent per annum 
until full payment is made. This system has worlied well 
elsewhere, because it to a large measure places these improve- 
ments directly in the hands of the property owners them- 
selves, and as they pay the bills and improve in harmony with 
plans furnished by the Commissioners of the District there 
should be no objection to its enactment here. 

IV. The Government of the United States, in the sundry civil 
appropriation bills of March 3, 1809, and June 6, 1900, made a 
direct appropriation to the Adams Mill road extension. Al- 
though this method is rarely used, this appropriation shows 
that streets may be improved by a direct appropriation from the 
United States Treasury. 

COMPARISON OF THH WASHINGTON CITY SYSTEM WITH OTHEK CITY 
SYSTEMS. 

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious, I 1 hinlc, that the fault of the Wash- 
ington system is not so much in method as in law. There is 
too much law. There are too many ways of reaching an end 
under the law, and the most vicious of these is the one which 
permits the opening and improvement of streets by special acts 
of Congress. Other American cities operate under a single well- 
known law passed by the legislatures of the respective States, 
while Washington operates under a series of four distinct bodies 
of law, in which the body known as special acts differs mate- 
rially and overri,des the other bodies of the law. The laws 
under which the cities operate are rarely changed, while the 
laws of the District of Columbia are changed frequently, sixteen 
having been passed since 1902. 

All of the cities of the State of New York, whether of the first, 
second, or third classes, are by general statutes authorized to 
condemn lands for the opening of streets, but the expense must 
be borne wholly by the property benefited, except that the coun- 
cil of any city, whenever an improvement shall be deemed more 
general than local, may assess a part of the expense against the 
city. 

All the cities of the State of Ohio are authorized by general 
statutes to assess upon abutting, adjacent, contiguous, or other 
specially benefited lots or lands in the corporation, any. part of 
the entire cost and expense connected with the improvement. 
The municipality, however, must pay at least 2 per cent and may 
pay more. 
7021 



9 

The cities of Pennsylvania may open new streets upon a peti 
tion signed by a majority of the owners of property on the 
streets affected and levy the cost on the abutters. The munici- 
pality may assume a part of the expense. By reference to a 
statement of the comptroller of Pittsburg, which I shall attach 
to and make a part of my speech, it will be seen that the tend- 
ency to get something for nothing is by no means confined to 
the city of Washington. 

The laws of these three States are fairly representative of all 
the laws of the other States. 

The almost universal rule is to levy the greater part of the 
first or original expense of street extension against abutters as 
the principal beneficiaries. 

WHO ARE THE BENEFICIARIES? 

In some States the constitutional provisions are such that 
benefits can not be set off against damages. In others benefits 
can not be set off against the land seized, but may be set off 
against damages to the rest of it. In others the benefits may be 
set off against the value of the land as well as against incidental 
injuries. And the latter ruling is supported by the weight of 
authority in the greater number of States. 

Elliott in his Roads and Highways, page 557, lays down the 

rule in these words: 

Where the property fronts on the street improved then it may be 
said, as a matter of law, that it is benefited to the extent of the im- 
provement, and on this assumption assessments on frontage may be 
sustained on principle. 

THE ALMOST UNIVERSAL RULE. 

It is an almost universal rule in all American cities that the 
expense of new streets is to be cast arbitrarily upon abutters, 
as the principal beneficiary. And logically, if they are not 
benefited to the extent of this expense, but yet at the same 
time they ask for it, who else is? 

Subject to this, if it can be shown that other and adjoining 
property is benefited it may be assessed with the abutters. 

And lastly as the general public obtains an easement in the 
street, it may be called a beneficiary and may be assessed. 

But except in rare cases, this assessment against the public is 
for the least pai't of the expense, and in the great m.jority of 
cases bears no expense whatever. 

Right here, however, it may be said that Washington holds a 
position sui generis. Washington has a .system of streets which 
are in common like the streets of all other cities, but it also 
has in addition a plan which demands a system of streets 
unlike the streets of any other American city, a system which 
might be termed national in character. And it is but just that 
7021 



10 

to the extent of the excess of expense created by this plan the 
assessment should be not against abutters, nor against the reve- 
nues of the District of Columbia, but upon the revenues of the 
United States. 

THE APPLICATION. 

The special statutes of the District of Columbia vary and 
lead to inequalities and incongruities. Why one set of men 
should put up collateral in order to obtain the opening of a 
street and not another? Why on some streets 100 per cent of 
all the damages shall be assessed against benefits and only 50 
per cent or less in others? Why one set of men should pay 10 
per cent interest annually and another 4 per cent? Why men 
on one extension of Kalorama avenue should be required to pay 
all of the damages and men on another extension of the same 
avenue 50 per cent or less? Why M street and Rittenhouse 
street should each be required to dedicate two-thirds of the 
land and pay 10 per cent on deferred assessments, while each of 
the other eleven streets named in the other eleven acts require 
no dedication and charge a less per cent? Why Sixteenth street 
should be improved at the expense of the public and other 
streets at the expense of the beneficiaries? Why one section 
of the city of Washington receives all the benefits of this special 
street improvement at the expense of all the other sections? 

These are all vital questions. They show that the laws are 
incongruous and need revision. To this end I have introduced a 
bill. 

A few words in explanation of the bill : 

This bill modifies and reenacts the highway act of 1893 and 
chapter 55 of the code of 1901, as the latter is amended. These 
acts seem to me to be in the main just and reasonable ; but 
after investigation and reflection I am persuaded that they are 
defective in three or four particulars, and have attempted to 
provide a remedy for those defects. 

The general and fair understanding of the situation in Wash- 
ington is that there are three parties in interest in every case 
of opening a new street or avenue in this District — first, the 
person whose property is taken for that purpose; second, the 
District of Columbia, and, third, the United States; and that 
the burdens ought to be equitably distributed among these 
parties. The United States controls the laying out of streets, 
avenues, county roads, and suburban streets, through a com- 
mission consisting of the Secretary of War, the Secretary of 
the Interior, and the Chief of Engineers, for the time being. 
The national authority, and not the local authority, thus con- 
trols the subject, and acts solely with a 7iew to national inter- 

7021 



11 

ests In developing here a city conformable in all its parts to the 
magnificent plan designed by L'Enfant and Washington for a 
national capital, and not for a county town. The streets are 
often of 160 feet in width and many miles in length. The case 
is entirely different from that of other cities. My bill, therefore, 
provides that the United States shall pay one-third of all dam- 
ages for property taken for streets exceeding 80 feet in width, 
and shall be made a party to and be represented by its attorney 
for this District in all condemnation proceedings relating to 
such streets. 

It also provides for allowing the District to issue bonds not 
exceeding $2,000,000 annually, and not exceeding $30,000,000 in 
all, in order to provide a fund for the payment of the damages 
awarded against it in such condemnation proceedings. 

It secures to any party aggrieved by the final order of the 
supreme court of the District in any such proceedings the right 
of appeal to the court of appeals of the District. 

As to minor streets and alleys and county roads not exceed- 
ing 60 feet in width, it adopts the provisions of the District 
Code as amended by the act of March 3, 1901, which do not re- 
quire the United States to pay anything, the matter being con- 
sidered purely local. 

I believe that under the plan I have proposed the burden of 
expense incident to the development of the capital city may be 
made to fall with reasonable impartiality upon the parties 
upon whom it justly and equitably should rest. Equality in 
the imposition of the burden is of the highest importance, and 
though absolute equality and absolute justice are never attain- 
able, the adoption of some rule or system tending to that end is 
indispensable. I believe that the plan suggested would save a 
great deal of money to the United States by convincing the 
people here that we mean to treat them fairly, and thereby in- 
ducing them to act justly toward the Government of the United 
States. If we attempt to compel tliem at their sole expense to 
execute the magnificent plans of improvement prepared by the 
officers of the United States for the aggrandizement of the 
national capital, they will simply recoup by awarding exorbi- 
tant damages against the United States for all lands talcen for 
its use, and in the long run we shall be losers and not gainers by 
an unjust policy. They will also continue to endeavor to obtaiji 
special legislation through Congress, as they have been doing 
since 1888. 

My object is to put an end to abuses now existing, and to 
hereafter carry on street openings in a systematic way under 
fair and impartial general laws. 
7021 



12 

To refer for a moment again to the faults of the present 
s.vstem, they are, to my mind — 

1. The special laws enacted by Congress interfere with the 
proper development of the general law. 

2. The general law does not give the citizens of the District 
sufficient power of initiative and results in extravagant im- 
provements, unnecessary improvements, and favoritism in the 
selection of improvements. 

3. For minor streets and alleys in a single block (that is, 
streets 60 feet wide or less), the Code places the initiative in 
the citizens. When a majority of property owners in such 
block ask for an improvement the Commissioners are directed 
to make it. This is right as far as it goes, but it does not go 
far enough. 

The right to form special improvement districts should be 
given by general statute. These districts should be permitted 
to take in any length of street or any area upon which streets 
have not been already laid out. Let a majority of the citi- 
zens owning abutting property petition for the improvement 
and then cast upon abutting pi'operty a certain proportion of 
the cost of condenmation and the first or original cost of the 
improvement. This is a stimulus to ^ocal pride. 

4. Streets in kind like streets of other cities — 80 feet wide 
or less — should be paid for like streets in other cities, a cer- 
tain part on abutting property and a certain part by the Dis- 
trict of Columbia. For such streets one half should be borne 
by the abutters and the other half by the District. 

5. For extraordinary streets, more than 80 feet wide, the 
United States should pay one-third, the District of Columbia 
one-third, and the abutters one-third. 

6. In other cities the opening and improvement of streets is 
facilitated by an issue of bonds. Authority to do that in 
Washington would break dow^n favoritism and result in a 
.general impi'ovement of all sections. A sinking fund should be 
created. Assessments made upon abutters for from ten to 
twenty years, for their proportionate part of every improvement 
and the necessary interest, and upon the entire property of the 
District for the remaining part, would provide a fund to retire 
bonds issued to run at from ten to twenty years. 

7. The figures submitted herewith show that the moneys 
heretofore appropriated for street extension, street improvement, 
and even for street repairs have been used too much for one 
part of the city to the exclusion of the rightful demands of all 
other parts. 

The following figures, taken from the engineer's report for 
the years 1903, 1904, and 1905, for work on streets, avenues, 
7021 



13 



county roads, and suburban streets, and repairs to asphalt, sbow 

the glaring inequalities in distribution of appropriation by the 

Commissioners of the District : 

Total improvements in west Washington, ?706,164, or 77.7 per cent. 
Total improvements in east Washington, $225,865, or 22.3 per cent. 
Total amount to the Northwest, $602,272, or 72.5 per cent. 
Total amount to the Northeast, $118,046, or 11.1 per cent. 
Total amount to the Southeast, $107,819, or 11 per cent. 
Total amount to the Southwest, $43,892, or 5.4 per cent. 

engineer's kepoet. 

Work on streets, avenues, county roads, and suburban streets for the 

year ending June SO, 1903. 

[Vol. II, page 42, folder, Table E.] 





Square 
yards. 


Cost. 


Northwest ..... . .... 


12,263 
45, 819 


837, 698 


County roads northwest 


85, 729 






Total northwest . . 


68,0.-2 
8,336 
7,416 

13, 102 
4,190 


123, 427 


Northeast 


19, 924 




16, 382 


Southeast ... 


30, 121 




9,935 







Repairs to asphalt — Table F. 

Northwest $79, 950 

Southeast 7, 457 

Southwest 4, 151 

Total to northwest, including Georgetown 213, 312 

Total to northeast 19, 924 

Total to southwest 20, 538 

Total to southeast 37, 578 

Total to west Washington 236, 845 

Total to east Washington 57, 402 

Table E, im. 

Streets in northwest $30, 015 

Suburban northwest 129, 577 



Total northwest 159, 592 



Streets in northeast- 
Suburban northeast _ 



33, 709 

8,482 



Total northeast 42, 191 



Streets in southeast 35, 037 

Streets in southwest 16, 726 

Table F, 1904 — Repairs to asphalt. 

Northwest $80,568 

Southwest 1,901 

Table E, 1903. 

Streets in northwest $54, 456 

Suburban northwest 109, 294 



Total northwest 163, 750 

Streets in northeast 29, 901 

Suburban northeast 15, 852 



Total northeast 45, 703 



Streets in southeast .. 26, 551 

Streets in southwest 16, 479 

Table F, 1903 — Repairs to asphalt. 

Northwest $44. 059 

Northeast 10, 178 

Southwest 4, 732 

Southeast 19, 135 

7021 



14 



CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS IN OTHER CITIES. 

Pittsburg. — Improvements of a general character are distriljuted upon 
abutters and the city in the ratio of two-thirds upon abutters to one- 
third upon the city. Improvements of strictly local character are cast 
upon abutters. 

The city comptroller of Pittsburg in his report for 1004-5 said : 

"A practice which in its inception was intended to relieve hardships 
in deserving and exceptional cases has grown to such proportions as to 
become a great and grievous wrong. In outlining public improvements 
care should be exercised in determining their scope and whether local 
or general in their character. If general and affecting the community 
as well as abutting property, the charge against the work might with 
justice be distributed and the city regarded as a beneiiciary ; but where 
the benefits are merely local the city should not be assessed with any 
portion of the work. It seems to have been the practice in late years, 
and is rapidly growing, of getting all the improvements that can be 
had at other people's expense. In other words, local improvements are 
very often made where the benefits are not equal to the damages, and 
the difTerence is charged to the city. * • • I do not believe that 
in many of these cases, and the books are full of them, that the gen- 
eral public is benefited in any way, and some plan should be adopted 
by which this practice of improving any portion of the local thorough- 
Ifares at the expense of the general public should be stopped." 

St. Louis. — This city formerly cast the cost of improvements upon the 
frontage. This was changed so as to lay special taxation against par- 
ticular pieces of property as benefits. The auditor for 190.5 says that 
this system produces greater inequalities than the old system, and that 
It is complicated, ill defined, and provocative of litigation. In neither 
case is the cost cast upon the city, except where the city may be an 
abutter or benefited. The total amount, however, paid by the city la 
condemnation proceedings under either system since 1887, a period of 
nineteen years was $:{81.2.34, or aljout $17,400 a year. 

Buffalo. — Street extensions, grade crossings, and sewer improvements 
are made by the city and the expense assessed against the streets or 
districts be"neflted thereby. Bonds are issued and a sinking fund 
created. A certain amount of the indebtedness is cast upon the front- 
age and the remainder upon a district locally benefited. 

Boston. — The cost for extending streets is cast upon abutters. Bonds 
are issued as in Buffalo, a sinking fund created, and assessments made 
against the abutting property or the property pf the district benefited. 
Cost of actual condemnations in Washington. 



Year. 


Street. 


Dam- 
ages. 


Benefits. 


1902 


Si xteenth street 


$729,952 
5,968 
6,092 
14,608 
51, 627 


8108,834 






2,023 


1902 


Adums Mill road 




190^ 


Euclid place 


7.400 


1905 


Highways on east and west sides of the 
Zoological Park. 


23,506 








808,247 


141,763 









In all of the other improvements, twelve in number, the benefits 
were about equal to the damages. The total damages in eleven of 
these only amounted to about $50,000. From this it appears that this 
system works well upon small improvements, but opens the way for 
speculative enterprise at the cost of the city in large improvements. 
Street extensions in in02 cost $1,086,676; street improvements cost 
$618,387 ; care and lighting, $936,019. Total, streets, exclusive of 
bridges and sewers, $2,641,000. 
In re the extension of Sixteenth street NW., court roll No. 5S0, in the 

supreme court of the District of Columbia, holding a district court. 

May 29, 1901. 

VERDICT AND AWARD OF DAMAGES AND ASSESSMENT OF BENEFITS. 

Schedule No. 1, damages. 

Schedule No. 2, benefits. „^ _^^^ ^ ^ 

Proceedings under acts of March 3, 1899, January 30, 1900, and June 
«. 1900. . . ^ , ., 

Note. — Schedule No. 1 sets out, first, damages awarded for land 
taken and damages due to grading, and, second, damages to improve- 
ments. 

Schedule No. 1, damages for land taken and damages due to grading. 
7021 



15 

HALL & ELVAN'S SUBDIVISION OF MERIDIAN HILL. 

Owners. "^"^^'"^"nA 

Miles Rock ^^f.- ^g 

Howard University 209125 

James°BT"Nrcho"lsonIIIIIIIIIII Hi::" 1*. 3^5*. 75 

John vVsmithlllirilllllllllllll-II ^, 905. 00 

Henry D. Williams 1 4'>2 25 

Louisa A. Williams J' |r^- ^5 

Do ---_ _ i;497;25 

Do - 1,5.34.75 



Do 



1, 572. 25 



Do I'l'iriririiiiii'"--------'-----------— i!o27.6o 

Henry D." WilUami..: '—'- \' ^;*6- gj 

Do - 1; 085. 20 

DO 1 190 (\a 

Benjamin P. Davis j' i^^ gO 

Do -___ 1; 162. 00 

Do 1 181, 20 

Do -__ __ 1,200.50 

w. i|{^fD^i::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::""- }; If,: U 

Do ___ 1,984.75 

Do 2,022.25 

Do - 2,000.00 

Henry D. Williams ^' i!^'- XX 

Mary F. Hendeison .„ Of!'>' 00 

Jam^-s B. Nicholson '422:25 

Do Q 1 oq' on 

William H. Walker ?' 525; 50 

Do ~ n'oTT^in 

D. W. Clinton Broadhead 1 129. 30 

Do I'oio'oo 

James H. C. Wilson :J' ^^J ^X 

Amelia F. Hensley |' -^ig" 20 

James F. Smith i'fios'20 

Robert Portner {' ^"j'g- $^ 

Marv F. Henderson ^,- ^< A^V' vn 

W. H. Walker and Chas. M. Campbell, trustees______-_ ^4, 001. 70 

Do _I"_III 3', 9()2!00 

Do A, OIR 00 

Alban H. Nixon "yZ^^l^Z 4 Iflfi: 00 

Do - - _ - -_ 4; 280. 00 

Myron M. Parlier ^' ^^i; ^^ 

Do a'o' f\K 

James B. Nicholson I"""I" 2, SSs! 00 

Alonzo^ C.'"BarnVttZIIIIIIIIII """"I"" ^' ^27'. 75 

Henry Carter j-fj- |X 

C. H. Merriam, jr III"I""III 09 30 

Do ii""iiir"ii"i~i-ii---------------- ---- 1^' -^'^- ^^ 

Harriet S. "Bfainei:— I-I-I-I '—- 1::::"" ^' 4-1O 70 

Do -__ 5 3,33- 50 

Do ""ii'iri — ziririiriiii"" 420. 70 

J. H. C.WUs'on andTuce sT HUi:-: 5, 486. 30 

Heirs V'Mary"M."Hodian::::iIIIIIIII---— -—----■--- 5, 606. 50 

William "ArCampbeflllllllllll 1"!"::""::" ^' III' 35 

Do _I_I__II__II 5, 846! 50 

Do IIIIIIII""II'I-II---------------- 413 .35 

William "Scott ..II— I -'—-- ^' g| ^^ 



Do 



1, 003. 25 



Do 'IIIIII"""""-------------------- --- ' ®^- ^^ 

Mbion^C. Chatham, jrl— I IlZZiri;! ^' 426! lo 

7021 



16 

Owriprg. Award. 

John D. Langhorne *?• oo?" Ra 

Harriet S. lilaine ^' ^i^f 2rt 

Laura F. Barney iii ^yl 

Cliarles D. Walcott and Richard Rathbum, trustees 438. 70 

Rebecca S. Barnes gj- ]^ 

John E. Anderson o^- "» 

Eliza A. Duffield 98. 55 

Morrell Morean 300. 70 

UNSUBDIVIDED TRACT, NORTHWEST CORNER SIXTEENTH STREET AND 
COLU.MBIA ROAD. 

Mary Swain Thompson $1, 771. 05 

DENISON AND LEIGHTON'S SUBDIVISION OF THE ESLIN ESTATE. 

Elbert Robinson and Oliver A. Morris $1, 203. 10 

Do 3-1- 70 

no — 2, eno. 65 

Do :::::::::"": in: 96. 20 

Do 8.50. 80 

Do 9,500.30 

Do ::::::::::::: 262. 50 

William J. Walker and .John Mitchell, Jr, trustees ,„^-I5 

M. W. and Katherine M. Edmunds 6,120.90 

Do ^ 1^5- I? 

Stanley Tcarce ^'V.'i^.i 

Mary R. Langtree §• I'lS' ^r 

David Ingalls ^' ^^I" S^ 

Do -•^- 80 

Alexander Grant and George F. Stone, trustees 4, 97S. .35 

Do 300. 50 

Butler F.~ Abbott___IIII_- 4, 256. 10 

Do _ _ _ 6.)4. 00 

Katherine S. Foos 3,361.00 

Do 922. 10 

Elizabeth Varney 739. 80 

Do -_ 930. 50 

John B. Henderson 1,830.30 

Dwiglit Anderson 1. 261.00 

Do 515. (0 

Phebe S. Lea ?' 2j6. 00 

Zeno B. Babb'tt 2, 249. 00 

W''l = am and Henrietta B. J. Ramsay 8, 36(.00 

Mary B. Ames .__..__..___...__ 8,071.25 

Do nil ""IIIIII— I— I 869.00 

Do 11-^ 78. 00 

Do 1. R^7. 00 

Do 185. 15 

Georse W. Sensner 1, 482. 74 

Do 236. 40 

George F. Stone „ ?S^- t2 

Do 2, 492. 10 

Do 1,820.00 

Do 1. fi'^(>- 00 

Emma B. Fitzgerald 2, 103. 50 

Do — 8.56. 10 

Charles R. Rowzee 705. 50 

ElizMboth Varney 960. 00 

Do 357. 90 

Lydia A. Tanner 10,301.20 

Do 248.40 

S. Elizabeth Henrv and Nellie M. Leadingham 7, 304. 80 

Do 1 620. 80 

Mary B. Sleman 2, 593. 90 

Mortimer Du Perow 203.40 

C. R. Mc^Iahon 1,484.20 

Priscilla B. Henley 5S8. 00 

Elizabeth Smith 48o. 50 

Mnrv F. Henderson 913.90 

Chailes M. Campbell ^ ^1- 15 

John M. Henderson 1, 304. 05 

Do 5- 60 

William K.Davidson 1,648.40 

Do 1. 817. 50 

7021 



17 

Owners. Award. 

Douglas F. Forrest $2, 354. 70 

EUeu MeMahon , 1, 265. 10 

Nellie M. Leadingham 1, 323. 60 

Jennie F. Skindle 5,719.60 

Do 159. 00 

Martha H. Wheeler 2,535.90 

Do 530. 90 

Emeline L. Morse 2, 150. 70 

Do 710. 20 

Edwin H. Snyder 1,765.50 

Alice E. Snyder 1,380.00 

William B. Snyder 1,224.00 

Alfred T. Gage 487. 70 

.s. p. brown's subdivision of mount pleasant. 

Annie Hardon $2,793.00 

Do 3,904.50 

Carl Hoffman 242. 25 

Mary P. Henderson 246. 70 

Do 1 4, 968. 10 

Benjamin P. Davis 12, 687. 10 

Do 3, 880. 50 

Georse E. Emmerich 3, 362. 00 

Jessie T. Green 4,220.00 

Do 1, 749. 60 

Do 1, 749. 60 

Do 1, 750. 20 

Do 1, 750. 20 

Do 980. 00 

William and Mary E. Butterworth 6.072.40 

William H. Crowell 1, 152. 50 

William F. and Charles W. Wagner 48. 35 

Richard P. Strong ' 245.60 

Laura Arnett Cole 421. 05 

Do 6, 363. 90 

Do 9, 000. 00 

Do 7, 596. 50 

Harry B. Parker 217.60 

Do 435. 85 

Do 3, 157. 40 

Heirs of Sydney V. Mitchell 328. 50 

Do 1,266.80 

Laura Arnett Cole 4,500.00 

Do : 3,192,45 

Do 125.50 

Catherine E. Peek and Claudius B. .Jewell, trustees 1, 204 15 

Theresa Dillon 2, 000. 00 

Do 2,517.90 

Amos Hadley 5, 785. 00 

Sarah P. Exley 1,974.60 

Do 6,565.30 

Do 637.70 

Martha F. Harmon 379. 05 

Melvina Rogers 10, 824. 90 

Do 875. 10 

Do 2,617.55 

Do 80.00 

William E. Anderson 1,149.85 

Do 120.00 

Rebecca M. Bensal 711. 60 

Do 375. 00 

John Moon 16. 95 

Do 1_ 625.00 

Nicholas E. Young 6,967.45 

Do 458. 10 

Do 1,248.70 

Do 3,444.20 

Do 119.80 

Do 3,564.00 

Do 3,247.20 

Do 316.70 

William H. Andrews 1,700.00 

Do 2, 687. 00 

T. Pliny Moran 9.30 

Do 400.00 

7021 2 



18 



Owners. Award 

Harrison G. Brewer $90 

Do :::::::::: m 

Do •_ gso. 

Do 200 

Wax. A. and Julia Whitson "" " ttt' 

Do :::::::::::::: 275: 

Do 3,122. 

Do 97 

John T. Knott __!_! ~ 87">' 

Rich.ird D., Wm. U., and Jno. K. Gordon ~ 8".") 

George R. Repetti ~ 700 

Fredericl< \V. Ritter, jr I ~ 700'. 

Do !__"_ 700 

Margaret A. Connell _ _ 700 

George W. Bigelow 1 204 

EdRiir w. Murphy iiirz:::::": i 

Thomas O'Connor 437 

Alice Simppon ~ "~ j^ ^[75' 

Eliza Warder "' _ _~ ' 9G'' 

Do z esol 

Do _ _ 6 

Susie A. Hertford _ _ __ 317 

Do :: 2g; 

Benjamin W. Holman, trustee 29,S 

Do 45. 

Do 430. 

Do 119. 

Do 369. 

Do 181. 

Do 307. 

Do 50. 

Do * _ _ 24.^ 

Do 1.50. 

Do 1S3. 

Do 200. 

Do 121. 

Do 250. 

Do 59. 

Do 300. 

Do 6. 

Emma K. Yoder 2 2.32. 

Do ' 232. 

Do III_I_I 216! 

Benjamin W. Holman, trustee _ 3 015 

Do 2, 300. 

Do 3, 344. 

Do 1. 051. 

Ellis Spear 4, 767. 

Do 221 

Do 250. 

Sarah F. Spear 3, 303. 

Do 500. 

J. Wilson Dyrenforth 1, Ool. 

Do 500! 

Do 446. 

UNCLASSIFIED TRACTS. 

Julia A. L. Hall $1, 600. 

Caroline D. Tracy Z ~ 2', 107. 

Do Z ' 392! 

J. D. Croisant 9 

Herhert T. W. Jenner ^ 1 800 

Albion B. Jameson and Albert F. Hendershott 10, 144. 

L. P. Shoemaker 481. 

Charles Early and C. C. Lancaster, trustees I 11,615] 

Augustus Burdorf and Allen S. Johnson, trustees 4.882. 

Gustav H. Kiihn 1 775 

Charles C. Glover 4^ 353. 

Charles W. Russell 3, 572 

Alexander F. Matthews " ' 50" 

Charles G. Matthews 1 271 

Achsah B. Rowell 1*342. 

John L. Norris 1 ' 442. 

Emma Hayes ~ 193' 

Edward L. White " _I"II " 455' 

7021 



19 



Owners. 



Award. 
$92. 93 



Helen W. Davts— _ \^^[ 50 

Mary V. Barbee 20. 80 

Alice F. Opdyke- 50.70 

Alexander Reynolds "III" 983. 45 

Ks1us^BmdorfYnd"A-lle-n-Crcrark^^ -^^l" gj 

Do --• 

SCHEDULE NO. 1 (B) .— D.*MAGES TO IMPROVEMENTS. ^^ 

Alban H. Nixon 150.00 

Myron M. Parker 40.00 

^^^^ -^r.-7-7 1 4.50. 00 

James B. Nicholson 2 800.00 

Alonzo C. Barnett-- _-- 7-\7---,l ' 150. 00 

Elbert Robertson and Oliver A. Morns ^ ^qq q^ 

Mary R. Langtree ' 05'. 00 

Emma B. Fitzgerald 25 00 

Charles R. Rowzee 5,900.00 

George W. Sensner 5 goO. 00 

Mary B. Ames IIIII IIIII--I"" 6,400.00 

William andTfemieTta'BTX Ra"miay f O^J]; |]g 

/eno B. Babbitt 4' 700 00 

I'hebe S. I-ea 4! 400. 00 

Dwight Anderson 9,500.00 

Lydia A. Tanner " 4,500.00 

Mortimer Du I'erow j 9^0 00 

Coliinibia R. Mc-Mahon 1*200.00 

Elizabeth Smitb_ l' 400. 00 

Nellie M. l.eadingham 800.00 

Ellen McMahon 2,000.00 

Douglas F. Forrest " 50. 00 

Annie Hardon --" 1,750.00 

Do _ - — ^^ Q^^ 

Carl Hoffman -— "" 2 700.00 

Benjamin P. DaviS- - 5' goo oO 

George M. Emmerich - 4 32I. 00 

Jessie T. Green- — 5,000.00 

Laura Arnett Cole 5 750. qq 

Do "" """ 1,200.00 

Harry B. P.iiker - "" 3 SOO. 00 

Arthur Hadloy _-"_ 5,100.00 

Theresa Dillon - 3,000.00 

Sarah F. Exley "-— 7,500.00 

Melvina Rogers "" 4 ooo. 00 

Nicholas E. Young 600.00 

William E. Anderson --— 15.00 

Rebecca M. Bonsai _— i25. 00 

John Moon " " _ 2,700.00 

Margaret A C"!^"^!' --,------ " 3,000.00 

Wm. A. and Julia M. Whitson ' ^c^o oo 

Harrison G. Brewer _— 2,900.00 

Alice Simpson - _"" 100.00 

C. C. Glover '" "~ <^00. 00 

John D. Norris 1,000.00 

A. B. Rowell . 

729, 952. 29 
Total damages 

SCHEDULE NO. 2.— .ASSESSMENTS OF BENEFITS. ^^ 

John W. Smith *i50; 00 

Miles Rock II'TZIIZIIIZIIIIII""---- 37.5. 00 

Do IZ 942! 00 

Do " _"Z" 451. 80 

James B. Nicholson - 50.00 

Betsy Ann Hill-- 451.80 

Lewis P. n. Davis 225.00 

Lucy Dix BoUes 7 1 348.05 

Henry D. Williams _ 340. 55 

Louisa A. Williams "_ 33.S. 05 

Do " 325. 25 

Do 254.45 

Do Z~'~ZZZZZIZZZZZZ_ZIZZ- 248. 40 

7021 



20 



Owners. Award. 

Louisa A. Williams $394.50 

Henry D. Williams __* 300.65 

Do 386. 80 

Do 382.95 

>Benjamin P. Davis 379. 10 

Do 375. 30 

Do . 371.45 

Do 367. 60 

Do 363. 75 

Do 359.90 

W. Riley Deeble 394.45 

Do 388. 45 

Do 382. 45 

Do 376. 40 

Do 370.40 

Henry D. Williams 364.40 

Maria J. Carter 75 OO 

Do 75^00 

Georgianna Bules 120. 00 

John A. Schlueter 90.00 

Mary F. Henderson 1, 106 50 

Do 1, 115; 85 

Do 729. 30 

Do 562. 90 

Do- 439. 20 

Harriet S. Blaine 190. 60 

A. M. Crane 144 oO 

Do 120.00 

Selina D. Wilson 200 00 

Do 2 420.' 00 

Mary M. Henderson 300 00 

Mary P. Henderson _ 300 00 

Do 900. 00 

Charles T. Willis 562 00 

De Witt C. Broadhoad 562 50 

Do 375.00 

George T. Klipstein and Carolina G. Caughey 375. 00 

Susan V. Jackson 525 00 

De Witt C. Broadhead 375! 00 

Joseph P! Webber 150.00 

Sarah E. Coffln__ 225 00 

De Witt C. Broadhead ~ 1, 659 50 

Do 1, 303. 60 

James H. C. Wilson 1, 279. 60 

Amelia T. Hensley 1,255.60 

James T. Smith 1, 231. 60 

Robert Portner 1, 207. 60 

Mary P. Henderson 1, iss' 60 

Prederick L. Rosenund 450 00 

Do 750. 00 

W. Henry Walker and Chas. M. Campbell, trustees 985. 50 

Do : 893. 50 

Albion H. Nixon 863 50 

Do 833. 50 

^^,r-^.-. 803. 50 

James V. White 773. sq 

Adelaide Barnett 25o! 00 

James B. Nicholson 450 00 

Virginia B. Holm.es 160.00 

Albert W. Bingham, jr 120 00 

James B. Wimer 80.00 

Elizabeth M. I'ower 40. 00 

Mary P. Henderson 300 00 

Do 600. 00 

_ Do 574.00 

Henry Carter 1, 14s. 60 

John D. Langhorne 630. 00 

Ida M. Shumate 26S. 30 

Harriet S. Blaine 2, 215. 00 

Laura P. Barney 526.00 

Charles D. Walcott and Richard Rathbun, trustee.? 1,067.00 

Mable H. Mellen and Marie H. Hoggatt 450. 00 

W. D. Davis 774 00 

Mable H. Mellen and Marie H. Hoggatt 225. 00 

Luey E. Moten 1,125.00 

7021 



21 



RebC'ca S. Barnes $747. 25 

Rebecca S. Barnes __ $747. 25 

•John E. Anderson 369.40 

Eliza A. Duffield ^oo q^ 

Morrell Moreon 7Jd. »5 

DENISON & LEIGHTON'S SUBDIVISION OF ESLIN ESTATE. 

Elbert Robertson and Oliver A. Morris $777.40 

Do 1. ^07. 88 

Do 217. 85 

Katberine S. Foos ^Vi' ^2 

Elizabeth Varney 5iS- o^ 

Emma B. Fitzgerald osZ' oR 

]jo z8». bO 

Charles R. Rowzee 2^J- ^9 

Elizabeth Varney i^I" X? 

Uo ■ 848. 2o 

John B. Henderson §?^- §9 

Arthur H. Whitlark , ?^5. 7o 

Do 1. 173. 40 

George F. Stone ^ 236. 10 

Thomas W. Huuster 1' Sif s9 

Charles H. Arnes Son is 

Mortimer De Perow V^!;" ^^ 

Columbus R. McMahon 457. 60 

Priscilla B. Henley ^I^- ^^ 

Elizabeth Smith 257.70 

Mary F. Henderson §j!.'^- 25 

Charles M. Campbell 490. 25 

Watson W. Farrar 490. 60 

Mary F. Henderson 392. 50 

Oscar P. Schmidt SSH" 55 

Mary F. Henderson IS^- r); 

Do 583. 50 

Edwin H. Snyder 9.B- 'i9, 

Columbus Kelly t>9o. 80 

William F. Snyder 798. 30 

Huldah Tilley and Alfred T. Gage 506. 40 

Christine Tyner 60. 75 

Thomas H. Sypherd ,ix- 5^ 

James B. McLaughlin 150. 00 

Do 204. 4d 

Marie Schmidt H^- i9, 

John M. Henderson, trustee 78. 30 

S. p. BROWX'S SUBDIVISION OF MOUNT PLEASANT. 

Annie Hardon ^?^9- RR 

Carl Hoffman l^i' ^^ 

W. H. Crowell AAo" ^R 

Wilhelmina Hoffman ?>!•!• 2x 

Carl Hoffman , -^ iV^- ix 

Joseph H. Crowfoi-d fir ?2 

Margaret J. Crawford ^-^zt-- *!'• 1^ 

William F. and C. W. Wagner, Samuel Barnes, and Philip 

B. Milton l'?or-|^ 

Benjamin P. Davis 1. 18^- 70 

Mary F. Henderson ^r?- gX 

Do ■» 6o3. bO 

Do - 1,056.50 

Do ::::::::::::: 468.40 

Selina M. Miller_-- HI' W. 

Do 150. bO 

Do ::::::::: 389. 10 

Do :::::: : 1. 167. 20 

Richard p-_^--«:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::; 1. \lt ^g 

Laura Arnett Cole 5i^- §,^ 

Harry B. Parker 58/. 80 

Heirs of Sydney V. Mitchell 168. 75 

Do - 1*^1- -^ 

Do 145.85 

Do ::"::::: 50. eo 

Charles Schneider 540. 00 

Charles R. Wright 234. 00 

Henry Troombly 469. 92 

C. B. Jewell, trustee 1. 1-0- SO 

7021 



22 

Owners. Award. 

Dan Costello and Hugh Govern . $939. 85 

Nicholas K. Youjg and Joseph H. Crawford 4G9. 90 

Nicholas E. Young 43. 10 

Robert II. Young 21. 60 

Henry C. Harmon 290. 40 

Do 667. 30 

Sarah F. Exley 466. 80 

William H. Andrews 3, 818. 60 

Nicholas E. Young 740. 00 

Melvina Rogers 319. 90 

William E. Anderson 276. 40 

Joh» Moon 157. 10 

Rebecca M. Bonsai 618. 20 

T. Pliny Moran 469. 40 

Harrison G. Brewer 280. 3.5 

Ellis Soear 375. 00 

Sarah F. Spear 750. 00 

J. A. Dvreufjrth 473.70 

Benjamin F. Holmes 100. 00 

Do 200.00 

Do 260.00 

Do 320.00 

Do 380.00 

Do 2,650.00 

UNSUBDIVIDKD TRACTS. 

Charles Early and Charles C. Lancaster 2, 137. 00 

Augustus Burgdorf and Allen S. Johnson 2, 750. 00 

Do 1,228.50 

Gustav H. Kuhn 1,000.00 

Total benefits 108,834.75 

The names of the dedicauts niaj be obtained from the books 
in the office of the surveyor of the District. 

A bill (H. R. 12692) to provide for opening and extending streets and 
avenues, county roads, and suburban streets in the District of Co- 
lumbia, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted, etc., That except as modified or repealed by this act 
all the provisions of the act of Congress appioved the 2d day of March, 
1893, entitled "An act to provide a permanent system of highways in 
the District of Columbia lying outside of cities," shall be and remain in 
full force and effect, and that all the powers given to the Commis- 
sioners and others thereby shall also apply to and be capable of being 
exercised within the limits of the cities of Washington and West 
Washington (formerly Georgetown), and tipon and through any addi- 
tion thereto, whenever it may be necessary to open or connect streets 
within the said cities, or streets lying partly within and partly beyond 
the limits thereof. 

Sec. 2. That in all cases where any street, avenue, county road, or 
suburban street which may be laid out and established in pursuance of 
this act or the act of March 2, 1893, aforesaid, shall exceed 80 feet 
In width, the amount awarded by the court as damages for such high- 
way or part thereof condemned and established, together with the entire 
first or original cost of the improvement, shall be assessed one-third 
against the land abutting npon the street or streets to be improved to a 
depth of 150 feet on each side thereof and the other two-thirds sliall 
be charged to the District of Columbia and the Treasury of the United 
States in equal proportions, and the damages awarded for all reserva- 
tions which may be condemned and established shall be charged wholly 
to the Treasury of the United States ; that for all streets 80 feet In 
width or under the entire amount of the damages and the entire first 
or original cost of the improvement shall be assessed one-half against 
the abutting property on each side of the improvement to a depth of 
150 feet and the other half shall be charged to the District of Columbia. 
Sec. 3. That in all cases where any street, alley, suburban street, or 
county road shall be not more than 80 feet in width and confined to a 
single block, the amount awarded by the court as damages shall be as- 
certained and paid in the manner prescribed by the act approved the 
23d of February, 1905, entitled "An act to amend chapter 55 of an act 
entitled 'An act to establish a code of law for the District of Colum- 
bia," " relating to the opening of minor streets and alleys in the said 
District ; and all other provisions of the said chapter 55 of the act of 
March 3, 1901, not inconsistent with this act or the said acts of March 
7021 



23 

2, 1893, and February 23, 1905, shall be and remain in full force and 

*^Sec 4 That In case citizens of the District of Columbia shall, by 
petition filed with the Commissioners of the District of irpl"™ '>f„ ^^^ 
signed by at least one-half of the owners of property abutting upon any 
highway; street, or streets of the District of Columbia or of Pi-operty 
lying within the boundaries of any special improvement district or area 
to be established within the boundaries of the District of Columbia ^sk 
that a highway, street, or streets be improved, or ope^^d. ^n/. I'^P^^^S^' 
under this act and the preceding acts and. laws of which t is amenda- 
tory, it shall be the duty of the Commissioners of the District of Co- 
lunibia to improve or open and improve said highway, street, or streets 
n manner and form now provided by law for the impi-ojement of exist- 
ing streets, or the opening, extension, and improvement of new streets, 
or as said existing law shall be modified by tliis act ,,„^mpnt 

Sec. 5. That in order to provide an available fund for the payment 
of the damages which mav hereafter be awarded against the District 
of CokinibTa in the execution of the plan of street extension hereinbe- 
fore authorized and required, and for the first or orij^inalimprovepQent 
thereof, the Commissioners of the District of Columbia shall have au- 
hority to execute, issue, and sell from time to "me as exigencies m^^^ 
require, bonds of the District of Columbia, not to exceed *-'<5^„«'pOO.m 
any one vear, nor to exceed $30,000,000 in all, to be paid, P^ncipal 
and interest, fifty years from the date thereof and wholly from the 

revenues of the District of Columbia. ^ j. ,, a 

Sec 6 That the United States shall be made a party to all proceed- 
ings for the condemnation of lands for highways under the system 
hereby established whenever the highways to be opened, extended or 
"mproved shall exceed 80 feet in width, and the attorney of the United 
States for the District of Columbia shall appear for the United States 

'"s^c.^T^'rCaraS^lfrty aggrieved by the final order or decree of the 
supreme court of the District of Columbia holding a district court flx- 
inl the amount of damages or the assessment upon any parcel of land, 
miy take an appeal therefrom to the court of appeals of the Pi^tnct 
of Columbia and shall be entitled to a bill of exceptions as in civil 
cLesTnd said court of appeals may affirm, reverse, or modify the 
ordir or decree appealed from: Proiuled. That said court of appeals 
shall consder only qupstions of law arising on such appea, and that 
luch anneal shall be taken within twenty days after the making of the 
final o?der or decree appealed from, and not afterxyards. and shall be 
subiect to existing laws and rules of court regulating appeals to said 
cout of appeals ffom the supreme court of the District of Columbia^ 
Sec. 8. That all laws and parts of laws inconsistent with this act 

''''sec.' 9?Vhat''th?s act shall take effect from and after its passage. 



Monday, Febniary 12, 1906. 



The House having under consideration the bill (H. R. 118) to amend 
sections 713 and 714 of an act to establish a Code of Law for the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, approved March 3. 1901. as amended by the acts ap- 
proved Januai-y 31 and June 30, 1902. and for other purposes- 
Mr. MORRELL said : 

Mr. Speaker: Two years ago, when the bill for appropria- 
tions for the District of Columbia was before the House, a 
Member who was not either a member of the Committee on the 
District of Columbia or the Appropriations Committee asked 
the question, in regard to an item, as to how that item com- 
pared with items in other cities of the same size as Washing- 
ton. I was surprised at my own ignorance, being unable to 
answer his question. But it brought very forcibly to my mind 
the fact that some investigation should be made as far as that 
was concerned. During the following summer I collected sta- 
tistics concerning the expenditures of fourteen other cities be- 
7021 



24 

sides Washington. These statistics are arranged in tables. 1 
had intended last winter to present the results of these inves- 
tigations to the House, but unfortunately I was taken ill, and 
only returned on the very day on which the appropriation bill 
for the District was being considered. 

Now, Mr. Spealier, it is popularly supposed that we are living 
in Washington under the best possible form of municipal gov- 
ernment, and we are very happy in that belief. I do not mean 
to say that we are wrong in that belief, but I think it might be 
well to inquire as to whether the excellence of the government 
is commensurate with the expense. Inasmuch as I was unable 
to present these tables last winter, so as to bring them as near 
as possible to date, I again made inquiries directed to the cities 
themselves, reducing the number of cities for comparison from 
fourteen to seven, and only including those whose population 
was practically the same as that in Washington. 

I will for a moment take up the time of the House by read- 
ing, not the tables themselves but some of the results of the 
deductions from those tables. For instance, it is worthy to 
note that in Buffalo, a city of 27 per cent more population and 
5 per cent more property than Washington, the expense for all 
the ordinary purposes of a city government was 32 per cent 
less than that of Washington. Pittsburg, with 15 per cent more 
population and 28 per cent more property, expended only 2 per 
cent more than the city of Washington for the purpose of a 
civil government. 

Baltimore, with nearly twice the population, more than twice 
the property, and the victim of one of the greatest fires in the 
world's history, expended but 34 per cent more than the city of 
Washington, ^2,377,686 of which being expenditure resulting 
from the fire. Deducting this fire expenditure the percentage 
for ordinary expense for Baltimore in 1904 was but 9 per cent 
more than that of Washington. 

St. Louis, double in population and nearly double in property, 
expended but 18 per cent more than Washington. 

These totals for ordinary expenditure for these seven cities, 
together with the percentages adduced, indicate an extravagance 
in expenditure for the city of Washington out of all proportion 
to the benefits derived. Had the comparison been extended to 
Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, and other cities the comparison 
would have been still less in favor of Washington. 

These ordinary expenditures cover salaries of city officials, 
clerks and laborers, expenses of the various departments of ac- 
counting, assessing, collecting, and disbursing the funds ; the ex- 
penses for electricity, gas, or other means of lighting ; of water, 
excepting the original expenditure for plant; of the police, the 
7021 



25 

fire, the health, charities. niarl<ets, paries, streets, and highways, 
including extension, sewers, garbage, ashes, schoolhouses, ap- 
paratus and school salaries, printing and binding, bridges, and 
all other items common to all cities for operation, protection, or 
education. 

Taking up another table, for instance, the table of office ex- 
penditures, Washington, with a population of 74,000 less than 
Buffalo, expended for kindred office work $87,429 more than 
Buffalo. Baltimore, with 230,000 more people than Washington, 
expends $49,000 more than the city of Washington. Pittsburg, 
with 42,000 more people, expends $142,000 less money than 
Washington. 

Mr. PAYNE. If the gentleman will allow me, when the gen- 
tleman speaks of the money expended in Wasliington he in- 
cludes the one-half provided by the Government? 
Mr. MORRELL. The total expense. 

Mr. PAYNE. Including the half provided by the United 
States Government? 

Mr. MORKELL. Yes. The entire cost, for instance, of the 
executive office in Washington in 1904 was $74.40.3. For Balti- 
more, $12,000; Boston, $30,000; for Buffalo, $11,000. Appar- 
ently, from these figures, the executive offices in Washington are 
rather, I might say, an expensive luxury. 

The expense of the executive, assessor's, collector's, and au- 
ditor's offices for Washington in 1904 was $181,042; for Balti- 
more, $74,661; for Pittsburg, $110,000; for St. Louis, $127,544; 
for Boston, $.386,282 ; for Buffalo, $108,336 ; for Newark, $86,759- 
It will thus be seen that the Commissioners' office, which cor- 
responds to the mayor's office in other cities, the collector's, the 
auditor's, and the assessor's offices cost very much more than all 
the other cities, except Boston, and more in proportion than Bos- 
ton. The Washington classification has been so highly differ- 
entiated as to create unnecessary positions. No city of the same 
size, as far as I can gather, has half the force, and no one pays 
the clerks and assistants as high salaries. 

Without at present going very closely into the details of these 
tables, I will state a few more expenses, to attract, if possible, 
the attention of the House. Taking up the question of bridges, 
sewers, and street extensions, the table which I have shows 
that Washington expends about twice as much for street ex- 
tensions and Improvements as St. Louis or Boston, four times 
as much as Buffalo, and a hundred thousand dollars per year 
more than the city of Pittsburg. 

Take the question of schools. It appears that the city of 
Cleveland, with a population of 100,000 more than Washington, 
employs the same number of teachers in that year— that is to 
7021 



26 



say, 1,329 teachers — under a system which educators estimate 
to be one of the best in the United States. 

To talie up these tables more in detail, first, I have com- 
pared the population and valuation of seven cities in the United 
States for the year 1904 : 



City. 


Popu- 
lation. 


Per- 
cent- 
age. 


Valuation. 


Per- 
cent- 
age. 


Washington . . 


278,718 
575,298 
560,892 
508,857 
352,887 
321 , 616 
24t;, 070 


100 
206 
203 
182 
127 
115 
88 


82.37,862,660 
439,584,490 
1,206,644,267 
503,144,182 
249, 373, 000 
465,139,055 
172,376.735 


100 


St. Louis 


185 


Boston 


507 


Baltimore 


ail 






Pittsbiiryr 


198 


Newark N J 


72 







From this it will be seen that the population of St. Louis, 
Boston, Baltimore, Buffalo, and Pittsburg exceeds the popula- 
tion of Washington from 15 to lOG per cent, Newark, N. J., be- 
ing the only city having a less population and valuation than 
Washington. The assessed valuations of property, both real 
and personal, in St. Louis, Baltimore, Boston, Buffalo, and 
Pittsburg exceed the valuation in Washington at from 5 to 402 
per cent, the valuation of Newark being less than three-quar- 
ters of that of Washington. 

Second, I shall call attention to Table 2: 
Table No. 2. — Slioicing gross cxpvtuliture of seven cities for the year 190k. 



City. 



Gross ex- 
penditure. 



Washington 810,257,547 

St. Louis i 13,818,126 

Boston 42, 717, 476 

Baltimore 16, 973, 0.52 

Buffalo ■7,2H6,.'i82 

Pittsburg 10, 976, 04 4 

Newark, N.J 6,538,939 



Per- 
cent- 
age. 



100 
134 
416 
165 
70 
107 



GROSS EXPENDITURES NO CRITERION. 

Gross expenditures include interest on debt, amount set aside 
for the sinking fund, amounts to meet specific loans, and other 
extraordinary expenses. They are therefore an unsafe basis for 
critical comparison. I have already called attention to the fact 
that it is a little singular that Buffalo, with 27 per cent more 
population and 5 per cent more property, should expend 30 per 
cent less for all purposes. Also, that Pittsburg, with a greater 
population and 08 per cent more property, should only expend 7 
per cent more for all purposes, while Newark, with but 75 per 
cent of the property of Washington, has but a total expenditure 
of 63 per cent of that of Washington. ^ 
7021 



27 

Table No. 3. — Shows the net or ordinary expenditure of seven cities for 
the year 190h 





City. 


Ordinary 
expendi- 
ture. 


Per- 
cent- 
age. 




$9,079,908 
10,734,141 
32, 638, 005 
12,193,118 
6,176,876 
9,330,172 
5,842,939 


100 


St Louis 


118 




359 


Baltimore . . 


134 


Buffalo 


68 




102 


Newark N J 


64 







Oflice expenditures as here used comprebend the salaries of all 
executive officers, as mayor or commissioners, auditors or comp- 
trollers, treasurers or disbursing officers, attorneys or law officers, 
collectors, sealers, etc., together with the clerical force provided 
by law. To be more explicit, I shall define office expenditure to 
Include all the ordinary expenses of municipal government ex- 
cept the cost of the police force, the fire deirartment, the lighting 
department, the schools, the health, charities, parks, and a few 
other mi.scellaneous expenses. 

T.4ELE No. 4. — Office expenditures of seven cities for 190k and five cities 
for 1902. 

1904. 

Washington $416, S67 

St. Louis T41, 477 

Boston 740. 407 

Baltimore 4fi.->. 870 

Buffalo 3-9, 438 

Pittsburg 274,399 

Newark, N. J 247,284 

1902. 

Cleveland 98, 999 

Cincinnati 176,248 

Detroit 207, 488 

Milwaukee 212, 632 

San Francisco 283, 000 

Thus, as I have already said, Washington, with a population 
of 74,1G9 less than Buffalo, expends for kindred office work 
$87,429 more than Buffalo. Baltimore, with 230,139 more people 
than Washington, expends but $49,003 more for office work. 
Pittsburg, with 42,898 more people, expends $142,468 less money. 
Detroit and Milwaukee, with about the same population, ex- 
pend about one-half the money. The same is practically true of 
Cleveland, Cincinnati, and San Francisco. These are all well- 
governed cities, and there is no satisfactory reason for an ex- 
penditure in Washington of nearly twice as much for the same 
services. Newark, with but 75 per cent of the population, ex- 
pends 60 per cent of Washington's expenditures. Because Wash- 
ington is the capital of the country is no reason for doubling, 
trebling, and even quadrupling the aggregates paid for the same 
services in cities as large and even twice as large. 
7021 



28 

The other municipalities have a single head, for whose serv- 
ices one of them, Chicago, with a population of 1,698.575, pays 
$5,000. Nearly all of the others pay from $4,000 to $G,000. 
Washington has a triple head, each part of which draws $5,000, 
with an allotment of a private secretary for each third of the 
authority. In other cities the chief officer is chosen by the 
people; has had a long residence in the city, and is identified 
with its material interests. 

Table No. 5. — Dealing with the police department, 190i and 1902. 



Cit.. 


'Area 
(square 
miles). 


Cost. 


Cost 

per 

square 

mile. 


1904. 
Washington. 


70 
62 
43 
31 
42 
2S 
18 

190 
37 
33 
23 

129 
41 


8S18, 179 

1,948,864 

l,7r-.8,420 

1,059,046 

787,613 

6lO, 000 

509,644 

3, 330, 000 
677, 607 
374, (.WO 
329.000 

2,689,915 
849,248 


811 688 


St. Louis ... 


31,433 
40,894 
34 16'' 




Baltimore 


Buffalo 


18, 129 




Newark, N.J 

1902. 
Chicago. 


28,313 

17, 500 
15, 600 






Milwaukee 


14 300 


Philadelphia 


20 700 











Washington and Georgetown have an area of about IG square 
miles ; the remainder of the 70 square miles in the District, al- 
though under the police control of Washington, is served by a 
system of mounted police with beats of several square miles. 
The aggregate cost, $818,179, is really distributed over an area 
of not more than 25 square miles, and costs about $20,454 per 
square mile. Why police protection in Washington should cost 
twice as much as in Milwaukee and Cleveland and more than in 
Buffalo, Pittsburg, Newark, and Cincinnati is hard to under- 
stand. President Roosevelt and John C. Wilkie complimented 
the police force of Detroit in 1901 very highly. The police 
forces of any of the cities above named will compare in effi- 
ciency with the police force of Washington most favorably. 
Washington has 686 policemen; Baltimore, 972; Buffalo, 628; 
Newark (1902), 448; Cincinnati (1902), 536; Cleveland (1902), 
376; Detroit (1902), 575; Milwaukee (1902), 322; Pittsburg 
(1902), 405. 

Comparing the number of policemen in each city with its 
total valuation, we obtain the following interesting information : 
There is one policeman or police official in Washington for every 
$340,000 of taxable property ; in Baltimore, one for every 
$510,000; Buffalo, one for every $397,000; Pittsburg (1902), one 
7021 



29 



for $794,313; Milwaukee (1902), one for $500,000; rX'troit 
(1902), one for $750,000; Cleveland (1902), one for $400,000; 
Newark (1902), one for $1,100,000. 

If it be argued that the taxable property assigned to Washing- 
ton is too small, being the valuation of the private proi)erty 
alone, it may be answered in reply that this does not materially 
affect the argument. The Government property is at all times 
under the protection of its own watch force, whose pay comes 
from the coffers of the National Government. If the valuation 
of Government buildings is to be added to one side of the ac- 
count, then the expense of these extra police should be added to 
the other. It is evident from all these considerations that the 
Metropolitan police force of Washington, while a most efficient 
body, costs far more in proportion than other efficient bodies do 
in cities of the same or larger size throughout the country. 

The expense account of the fire department in the city of 
Philadelphia — a city nearly five times as large and covering an 
area nearly twelve times as great as Washington proper — was 
$985,319. Washington expended $326,161. The following table 
will show the expenditures of seven cities for 1904 and five 
cities for 1902 : 

Table No. 6.- — Dcallny with the fire department. 

1904. 

Washington ^too' l-?! 

ILi^r^ :::::::::::::::::::::: i.tSli 

Bafu^or^:::::::::::::::::: 6i5,o6o 

Buffalo 741,661 

Pittsburi" 600. 000 

Newark, N. J 405,098 

1902. 

Cleveland 412,999 

Cincinnati ll-' qI% 

Detroit ioi'tll 

Milwaukee 421, 333 

San Francisco '"^> ^o"* 

Next comes streets and highwaj^s. This table shows the com- 
parative expense in cities for extension and improvement of 
streets, avenues, and alleys, excluding lighting, cleaning, sew- 
erage, parks, and bridges, 1904. 

EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT OF STREETS. 



City. 


Exten- 
sion. 


Improve- 
ment. 


Total. 




8199, 504 

89,138 

43, 2S3 

1,132,458 

18,095 


S583, 723 
219,443 
320, 770 
784, 122 
175.468 


S783,26T 




308,581 


D * ^ 


364,053 


T, l.J 


1,916,680 




193,563 




678,000 


Newark. N.j 


Can not separate. 





STREET CLKANING. 



City. 



Ashei 

and 

garbage. 



Clean- 
ing. 



Washington . . 

St. Louis 

Boston 

Baltimore 

Buffalo 

Pittsburga 

Newark, N. J. 



8133,387 
322, 562 
706, 529 
195, 800 
160,000 



8186, 290 
70i,569 
434, 132 
257, 621 
140, 000 



8299,677 

1,027,131 

1,140,651 

453, 421 

300, 000 



85,500 



224.237 



309,727 



"The item in the preceding table covers all expense. 

STREET REPAIRING AND LIGHTING. 



City. 


Repair- 
ing. 


Light- 
ing. 


Total. 




8293,427 
605, 169 

1,073,445 
180,510 
50,632 
150, 000 
167, 917 


8288, 923 
566, 715 


8582, 360 




1,171,884 




1, 073, 445 




•320,121 
303,391 
387,859 
240,694 


500, 532 




354,023 


Pittsburg 


637, 869 


Newark, N.J 


408,611 



BRIDGES AND SEWERS. 



City. 


Bridges. 


Sewers. 


Total. 




861,777 
131,710 
459, 658 

44,303 
369, 862 

31,050 
4,151 


8678, 190 
255, 560 
324, 360 
97,906 


8739, 967 


St Louis 


3H5, 270 




784,018 




138,209 


Buffalo 


309. 862 




66,330 


31,050 


Newark, N.J 


60, 481 



a Included above. 

It will be seen from these tables that, as I have said, Wash- 
ington expends about twice as much for street extension and 
improvement as St. Louis and Boston, four times as much as 
Buffalo, and $100,000 per year more than Pittsburg. The de- 
structive fire at Baltimore cast such an amount of extra work 
upon that city as to make its expenditures for the year 1904 of 
no value in this comparison. Were less money spent upon 
street extension and improvement and more upon garbage and 
cleaning, a better equilibrium would be maintained. 

The amount expended for sewerage seems to be very high 
when compared with that of St. Louis, Baltimore, and Buffalo. 

Next I have a table of public schools. This table includes 
the expenditure for all schools — collegiate, business, art, kinder- 
garten, normal, summer, and public — including salaries, books, 
fuel, buildings, grounds, and other contingencies, 1904 and 1902 : 
7021 



31 



City. 


Salaries. 


Buildings 

and 
supplies. 


Total. 


1904. 
Washington 


$1,068,986 


8621, 385 


$1,690,371 




2,631,358 3,106,876 
1, 169, 147 270, 897 
1,081,650 87,021 
Both items included. 
869.862 519,126 

1,092.689 61,612 

1,491,104 922,441 

763,002 334,829 


5,738,234 




1,440,044 




1,178,671 




1,075,000 




1, 388, 988 


1902. 


1,154,301 




2,413,548 


etro t . . . 


1,097,031 







« Comptroller's report does not itemize. 

Enrollment, number of teachers, and cost per pupil, hased on total en- 
rollment and total expenditure, 1903. 



City. 



Teach- Cost per 
ers. pupil. 



Washington .. 
Philadelphia . 

St. Louis 

Newark, N. J . 

Boston 

Baltimore 

Cincinnati 

Cleveland — 

Pittsburg 

Buffalo 



48,745 
192, 849 
82,459 
42, 230 
97, 871 
88, 528 
43,884 
64,884 
51,494 
60, 779 



1,339 

3, 766 
1,669 

863 
2,195 
1,689 

922 
1, 339 
1,008 
1,199 



833.30 
25.50 
27.40 
23.20 
44.00 
19.10 
21.60 
33.80 
27.90 
24.80 



One of the be.st systems of schools in the United States is 
that of Cleveland, Ohio. The figures upon which the above cal- 
culations were made were taken from the Report of the Com- 
missioner of Education for 1903. It appears that the city of 
Cleveland, with a population of 100,000 more than Washington, 
employed the same number of teachers in that year. That is to 
say, 1,339 teachers in Cleveland, Ohio, under a system which 
educators admit to be one of the best in the United States, 
educated an enrolled population of 64,884, at a cost of $33.80 
each, while the same number of teachers in Washington educated 
16,000 less, at a cost of only 50 cents less per capita. It will also 
be seen that the per capita cost for the education of a child in 
Philadelphia, under a system admittedly the best, is $7.80 less 
than in Washington. The per capita cost of education in all 
the cities named, except Cleveland and Boston, is far below 
that of Washington. Newark and Cincinnati enroll almost as 
many pupils and educates them at a cost of from $10 to $12 
less per caiiita. Buffalo educates 25 per cent more children than 
Washington, in schools equally as good or better, at $9 less 
per capita. The fault of the Washington system lies first in its 
7021 



32 

so-called " board of education." It is nonrepresentative as to 
residence, educational ability, and knowledge of educational 
affairs. The system is without a head, as the superintendent is 
divested of that part of the authority which goes to make 
eflSciency in public instruction. He has no absolute control 
over principals or teachers. The principals lack subordination, 
as do the teachers. The pay of both teachers and principals is 
representative of the pay of teachers and principals in good 
schools throughout the. country. The above figures demonstrate 
this conclusion. 

The last table refers to charities and corrections for the year 
1903: 



City. 


Charities. 


Correc- 
tions. 


Total. 


Washington 


5668,343 
454,021 
a76, 174 
218, 406 
1,257,362 
387, 169 
236,200 
73,627 
60, 500 
9,001 
227,000 
114,261 
48, 249 
272,000 


8153,122 
215. 613 


8821,465 


Philadelphia . . 


669, 534 


























i48,743 


384,943 








40, 696 


101, 196 


Milwnnkfp 




Chicago 


165,534 


382,534 




114,261 





















» Includes both. 

Mr. Speaker, this concludes the tables. I may add that it 
was in the course of this investigation that the matter of street 
extension was brought to my attention, as also several other mat- 
ters in connection with the District of Columbia — for instance, 
taxation. I propose at some future occasion to burden the House 
with some remarks upon these other matters, and I do hope 
that the Members of the House will give attention to these tables 
when they appear in the Record and will scrutinize them care- 
fully. 

I ask it for this reason, because, as far as the expenditures 
of the District of Columbia are concerned, the Members of this 
House occupy a dual position of trust. First, they come here 
representing their constituents at home, a portion of whose taxes 
are used to pay for the government of the city ; next, they rep- 
resent also almost 400,000 of population of the city of \Yashing- 
ton, who are deprived of suffrage and who have no means 
of regulating the expenditure of the money they pay in taxes. 
I trust for these reasons that the Members of the House will 
give these matters their careful attention. 
7021 



33 



Monday, Fehruanj 26, 1906. 

The FTonse having under consideration bills relating to the District 
of Columbia — 

Mr. MORRELL said : 

Mr. Chairman : In the course of my remarks on the last 

District day I said that I would have some other matters to 

call to the attention of the House, and among them the matter 

of taxation and assessment. As a text, I shall quote the law 

governing assessments in the District of Columbia, which will 

be found in section 5 of the act making appropriations for the 

expenses of the District of Columbia for the fiscal year ending 

June 30, 1903, and is as follows : 

All real estate in the District of Columbia subject to taxation, in- 
cluding improvements thereon, shall be assessed at not less than two- 
thirds of the true value thereof. 

The three things most striking in regard to taxation in the 
District of Columbia are, first, the undervaluation; second, the 
enormous outlay or expense of assessment, and, third, the sys- 
tem of exemptions. 

1. The undervaluations. — In the course of my examination of 
the Sixteenth street condemnation proceedings I stumbled upon 
some truly astonishing instances illustrating this point. One 
man owned a piece which was assessed for taxation in 1902 at 
the value of $253. Now, when the Government took that same 
land for a street the jury gave him as damages $10,063. The 
jury acted under oath, and making, in all probability, a fair 
estimate of the actual value of the land taken gave the owner 
almost forty times as much as the land was rated at upon the 
assessors' books. I had wondered how on earth that jury 
could assess the total damages to property owners in that sec- 
tion at $796,000 while all the property along the line of the 
street was benefited only to the extent of $108,000. But when 
this was discovered I concluded that the land must have been 
so peculiarly adapted to streets and so useless for any other 
purpose that it couldn't be improved in value even by the con- 
struction of a grand boulevard through it. 

Another striking case is that of Messrs. Elbert Robinson and 
Oliver A. Mori'is, who owned lot No. 125 in Denison & Leigh- 
ton's subdivision of the Eslin estate. This lot contained 2,339.7 
square feet and was assessed for taxes at a total valuation of 
$96. The jury awarded damages to the amount of $2,690.65, 
which was more than twenty-eight times the assessed valuation 
for taxes. 

There were several other cases like that of Mr. Nicholson. I 
might say that they were nearly all like it, so far as the Six- 
7021 3 



84 



teenth street extension is concerned. The following table ex- 
hibits several of them, selected at random: 

Table exMMting the difference between the assessed value of lots in the 
District of Columbia for purposes of taxation and the amounts paid 
by the Government for the same lots under condemnation proceedings. 

IN S. P. BROWN'S SUBDIVISION OF MOUNT PLEASANT. 



Block. 


Lot. 


Area 

in square 

feet. 


Total as- 
sessment 
for 
taxes. 


Paid under 
condemna- 
tion pro- 
ceedings. 


Name of owner. 


1 

1 

1 


10 
129 
130 


15,858.90 
9,000.00 
7,596.50 


$1,307 

1,186 

631 


$12,687.10 
9,000.00 
7,500.00 


Benjamin P. Davis. 
Laura Arnett Cole. 
Do. 



HALL & ELVAN'S SUBDIVISION OF MERIDIAN HILL. 



6,708.00 



$253 $10, 062. 00 James B. Nicholson. 



DENISON & LEIGHTON'S SUBDIVISION OF THE ESLIN ESTATE. 



125 2 33S.70 $96 $2,690.65 \Elbert Robmson and Oliver A. 

127 9,590.30 1,210 9,590.30 J Morris. 



No effort was made In selecting these examples to find ex- 
treme cases. My object was merely to get instances of the 
relative ratio of taxation to the selling price of property in 
each of the subdivisions involved in the Sixteenth street con- 
demnation proceedings. The damages awarded in these cases 
did not include damages for improvements, but solely for land 
talcen. 

The situation on Capitol Hill is not so bad, but it is still bad 
enough — very much worse than it ought to be. 

There is a document published by Senator Cxtllom's committee 
entitled the " Report of proceedings in acquiring square 686 as 
a site for the Senate office building," which throws a great 
deal of light on this subject. From this report I gather the fol- 
lowing examples of the difference between the value of land in 
the District as assessed for taxes and the value of the same 
land when condemned for public uses : 

1. A vacant lot on B street NE., containing 2.278 square feet, 
was assessed for taxes at $1.45 a square foot, and was assessed 
as a whole at $3,303. The owner asked the Government $9,714. 
and the jury awarded him $7,404. 

2. Two vacant lots at the corner of Delaware avenue and B 
street NE. were assessed at a total value of $12,629. The jury 
awarded $42,042. 

3. A front and back lot on B street NE. were assessed at a 
total valuation, exclusive of improvements, of $3,571. The Im- 
provements were assessed at $3,500, making the assessed value 

of the entire property $7,071. The jury awarded $19,775. 
7021 



^5 

The law requires that assessments shall be made for at least 
two-thirds of the valuation, and in these cases, which are only 
fair examples of the whole, we find property paid for by the 
Government at from three to five times the rate at which it 
was listed for taxes. I am told that in the proceedings for 
acquiring square 690 as a site for an office building for the 
House of Representatives the amounts awarded as damages 
were in almost every case four or five times as great as valua- 
tions put upon the lands for taxes. And here I would like to 
digress a little. I am informed that when an effort was made 
to find the report and award of the jury in proceedings relating 
to square GOO the task proved too much. It was not among the 
records of the case in court roll 597, where it should have been. 
It had not been recorded either in the Interior Department or 
in the office of the register of deeds of the District of Columbia. 
The Secretary of the Interior had approved it and then it had 
been turned over to a lawyer, and, with the exception of that 
lawyer, there was apparently no living man in possession of the 
legal evidence necessary to verify the title of tne United States 
to the lands included in square 690 of this city. And this seems 
to have been the case since May, 1904. Suppose all those lots 
were sold by the former owners to innocent purchasers without 
notice — there being no proper legal record of the transfer of 
title — who would be to blame? And what would be the result? 

But, though it was impossible to find the report and award 
of the jury in any place where it ought to be filed or recorded, 
it was possible to find, in a petition for payment of the amount 
due Thomas F. Mallan under the award, the following facts, 
which may be taken, in the absence of the jury's complete 
report and award, as forming an average case. Mallan owned 
subdivision No. 10, in square 690. This parcel of land was 
assessed for taxation at $6,048, and the improvements thereon 
at $7,800, making a total valuation of $13,848. The jury 
awarded as damages $31,496.07, and the property was probably 
worth that sum. All this shows, -not that the Government has 
paid too much for this land on Capitol Hill and in the section 
around the great central park which has been created beyond 
the city limits, but that it has apparently been grossly under- 
valued in the assessment of taxes. (Acts 1901-2, p. 616.) 

In the business section of the city the discrepancies are not 
so great, the property there being taxed upon about half its 
real value. Stoneleigh Court, sublet 35, square 164, is assessed 
at $535,994, the lot being rated at $105,499 and the building at 
$430,000. 

The New Willard Hotel, sublet 26, square 225, is assessed at 
7021 



36 

$1,062,635— the ground at $442,635 and the building at $620,000. 

The Colorado Building, sublot 60, square 252, is assessed at 
$536,592— the land at $136,592 and the building at $350,000. 

Much complaint has been made in the city of Washington, 
not only against the discriminations in assessments, but also 
against the undervaluation of land with reference to the im- 
provements thereon. Some of these complaints have found 
their vray into the public prints. From the Washington Times 
of Sunday, January 7, 1906, I extract the following statements 
of Mr. E. W. Oyster, a prominent citizen of the District of 
Columbia. Among other things, Mr. Oyster said: 

ALLEGED ODTRAGEOUS DISCRIMINATION. 

But great as are the inequalities in tlie assessments of improvements, 
the inequalities in the assessments of land in different sections of the 
city and county, and even in the same locality, are very much greater, 
and the discrimination in favor of the land speculator as against the 
home owner and home seeker is simply outrageous. 

LAND VALDES IN NEW YORK. 

The last assessment in Greater New York shows that the value of 
land in that city is $3,697,686,935 and of improvements $1,100,657,854, 
the land values being 77 per cent of the whole. 

LAND VALUES IN WASHINGTON. 

The value of the land in the District of Columbia is probably 75 per 
cent, certainly not less than two-thirds, of the total value of land and 
improvements, and should therefore bear not less than two-thirds of 
the tax on real estate. The total assessment on this class of property 
is $239,461,985, the assessment on land being $136,843,419, on improve- 
ments $102,618,566. Had land and improvements been fairly assessed 
in proportion to value the assessment on the land would have been not 
less than $159,641,324 and on improvements not more than $79,820,661. 

The discrimination against improvements and in favor of land could 
not be justified at any time, and surely can not be justified now, as the 
law under which the present assessment was made provides " that here- 
after all real estate in the District of Columbia subject to taxation, in- 
cluding improvements thereon, shall be assessed at not less than two- 
thirds of the true value thereof and shall be taxed 11 per cent upon the 
assessed valuation." 

The law is both positive and clear and was Intended to prevent in 
the future the unjust discrimination in favor of land-grabbing syndi- 
cates, speculators, and monopolists. Had the assessors obeyed the law 
in making the assessment of real estate for the next three years, im- 
provements would have been assessed at about $125,000,000 and land 
at about $375,000,000. This would have produced, at $1.50 on the 
$100, $7,500,000, or about double the amount desired to be raised from 
that class of property. It is not necessary at this time to enter into 
a discussion as to whether or not the law is just what it should be, but 
if the assessors, with the provisions above quoted " staring them in the 
face," assumed the responsibility of ignoring or evading it to the extent 
of raising only such an amount of revenue as they think necessary, 
then they should have ignored or evaded it to the same extent in favor 
of improvements as they have in favor of land. 

SHOULD HAVE A SQUARE DEAL. 

An assessment of one-third the true value of land and improve- 
ments — say, $187,500,000 on land and $62,500,000 on improvements — 
would have raised a larger revenue than will be raised under the 
inequitable assessment made or the next three years. Such an assess- 
ment would probably raise a howl from those who are holding vacant 
land out of use for speculative purposes, but should, and no doubt 
would, meet with the approval of all owners of improved property who 
believe in the principles of justice and " a square deal." 

The assertion that land values are not less than two-thirds the value 
of both land and improvements is based on actual sales in different sec- 
tions of the District in comparison with assessed values. 

GOVERNMENT PURCI 



For instance, the Government paid five and a half times more than 
the assessment for the land on which the new Government Printing 
7021 



37 

Office stands, and three and a half times more than Ae assessment for 
the land on which the House and Senate buildings are being erected. 

The assertion is frequently made that the price paid for land by the 
Government is not a fair test of true value, for the reason that the 
United States is alleged to be more generous in the purchase of such 
property than private parties. However that may be in other cities, 
the facts do not sustain that contention in regard to the District of 
Columbia. 

PURCHASES BY PRIVATE PARTIES. 

The sale to private parties of 2,000 square feet of ground at the 
southwest corner of square 236, at Fourteenth and U streets, was noted 
in the city papers of August 26, 1905, and the price paid for the cor- 
ner was given as $19,000. The assessment on this land is $o.300, and 
on the improvement, since torn down, was $3,000. Assuming $6,000 to 
have been the true value of the building, the amount paid for the land 
was $13,000, or about four times the assessment. 

By deeds placed on record in December, 1905, the Anheuser-Busch 
Brewing Association secured from the Bakers' Cooperative Association 
11,000 square feet of ground at the southwest corner of North Capitol 
and P streets. The city papers of December 28 gave the price paid as 
$55,000, or $5 a foot. The assessment on 2,750 feet of this ground is 
90 cents a foot and on the remainder — 8,250 feet — 65 cents a foot, 
averaging 71J cents a foot, making the total assessment on the land 
$7,837.50. The improvements are assessed at $4,800, After deducting 
double the assessment on the improvements (of little value to the pur- 
chasers) from the total amount paid, it will 'oe seen that the price paid 
for the land was about $4.13 a foot — nearly six times the assessment. 

LAND VALUES. 

A comparison of the assessments with the selling prices of land will 
convince any fair-minded person that the above examples are not ex- 
ceptions to the general rule — that is, that the selling price of land in 
the city, which must be somewhere near the true" value, is not less than 
from two and a half to four times the assessment on it, and that large 
and expensive improvements are assessed at from 10 to 30 per cent 
lower than small ones in proportion to value. 

The land in the square immediately north of the Treasury Depart- 
ment is assessed at from $4 to $30 a square foot, the northwest corner 
of Fifteenth street and Pennsylvania avenue being the $30 corner, and, 
in the judgment of the assessors, the most valuable parcel of land in 
the District. It no doubt cost its present owners nearly three times the 
assessment. 

Square No. 222, between Fourteenth and Fifteenth streets and New 
York avenue and H street, is assessed at from $4 to $25 a foot, the 
northeast corner of Fifteenth street and New York avenue being the 
most valuable part of the square. 

The Equitable Building ground at Fifteenth and G streets is assessed 
at $22 a foot, the Commercial Bank corner. Fourteenth and G, at $20 
a foot, and the Bond Building corner at $15 a foot. Taken as a whole, 
this square is said to be the most valuable piece of land in the city. 

ASSESSMENTS ON IMPROVEMENTS. 

The assessments on improvements range from 40 to 65 per cent of 
true value, averaging about 50 per cent. The New Willard Hotel is 
assessed at $620,000. The Colorado Building is assessed at $350,000. 
The Star office and the Loan and Trust Building are each assessed at 
$200,000, and are among the few large structures assessed up to the 
average of 50 per cent of true value. It is safe to say that neither the 
Willard Hotel nor the Colorado Building is assessed up to the average 
for improvements. 

The most valuable private residences in the city stand on adjoining 
squares on the south side of Massachusetts avenue northwest. One is 
assessed at $250,000 and the other at $225,000, probably not more than 
one-third of their cost. 

Outside of the city limits the discrimination in, favor of the owner of 
vacant land as against the home owner is even more striking than in 
the city. Improvements are assessed at from 50 to 60 per cent of their 
cost, while land is assessed at from 10 to 30 per cent of its true value, 
an average of not more than 25 per cent. 

For example, land in block 27, Petworth, purchased three years ago 
for 30 cents a foot, now worth about 40 or 45 cents a foot, is assessed 
at 12 cents. 

The land In blocks 37 and 38 is assessed at 2, 3, 4, and 5 cents a 
foot. None of this land can be bought for less than from six to twelve 
times the assessment. 

Land in block 39 was purchased for IS cents a foot about three years 
7021 



38 

ago, and for 25 cents a foot about eighteen months ago, and frame 
houses costing probably $2,200 and $4,000 erected thereon. This whole 
block is assessed at 2 cents a foot, not more than 10 per cent of true 
vahie. The improvements are assessed at about 50 per cent of cost. 

Very recently land In blocks 73 and 78, on which about forty brick 
houses are being erected, sold for 40 cents a foot. Three-fourths of the 
land in these blocks is assessed at 5 cents a foot, the balance at 6 and 
8 cents. 

The assessment on the land in Petworth is from 10 to 30 per cent of 
true value, averaging about 20 per cent. The improvements are as- 
sessed at fully 50 per cent. 

Let no one imagine that the owners of vacant land in Petworth have 
been specially favored. An examination of the assessor's books will 
show that the same discrimination has been made in favor of the land 
speculator in every other section of the District. Millions of square 
feet which can not be bought for less than from 10 to 50 cents a foot 
are assessed at from 1 to 10 cents a foot, and thousands of acres which 
can not be purchased for less than from $2,000 to $8,000 an acre are 
assessed at from $400 to $2,000 an acre. 

The flat buildings of the District seem to be taxed according 
to location rather than actual value ; those in the business sec- 
tion, like the Stoneleigh, being taxed. on a 50 per cent basis, and 
those in the suburbs and outlying sections on a 10 and 20 per 
cent basis. This is apparent from the assessor's report for 1905 
(page 81 of the report of the Commissioners), where we find 
that those buildings located in different sections of the city of 
Washington are assessed as follows: 

Northwest, 109 flat buildings, assessed at $495,200 for all. 

Southwest, 1 building, at $3,000. 

Northeast, 145 buildings, at $351,500 for all. 

Southeast, 29 buildings, at $05,300 for all. 

Total, 285 buildings, at $915,000 for all. 

Thus it will be seen that the average value of a flat building, 
according to the assessor, it only $3,210 in Washington. 

If we deduct the assessed value of Stoneleigh Court from the 
total value of all such buildings ($915,000), we have $485,000 
as the total value of 284 flat buildings in the city, making the 
average value of such a building only $1,705. Many of these flat 
buildings are immense buildings, costing hundreds of thousands 
of dollars. This class of property is evidently undervalued al- 
most as greatly as lands around Rock Creek Park. 

From the report of the Select Committee to Investigate Tax 
Assessments in the District of Columbia in the Fifty-second 
Congress, first session (H. Rept. No. 14G9), I extract the fol- 
lowing : 

Now, the attempt to collect taxes which it is thus obvious can not 
be collected, and as to which there is evidently a feeling that regards 
their collection as unjust, must by its reactive effects render more diffi- 
cult than it ought to be the full and equitable assessment of taxes on 
landed property. And so it is with the assessment of taxes upon build- 
ings and improvements. The value of the small and cheaply built 
house may be fairly estimated by a look from the outside, but the value 
of one of those costly edifices that are becoming so common in the 
Federal District can not be told without close examination. A door, 
a pier glass, a marble floor, a stained window, a carved staircase in 
one of these houses has a value far greater than the entire homestead 
or hired residence of one who among the great masses of our people 
would be deemed well to do. • » * The poor man with a small 
7021 



and poor bouse has to submit. A few dollars difference in the assess- 
ment will not pay him for the time and trouble of protesting. But the 
rich man, with the costly house, not merely has more time and larger 
interests, but finds the diflerence in the assessment a more important 
matter. Thus in both these ways there are powerful tendencies con- 
stantly at work to produce unjust inequality in the taxation of build- 
ings and improvements. 

This idea is further manifest in the difference made between 
speculative and business interests in the city of Washington. 
The latter are apparently discriminated against. In additii.a 
to the cases cited from the report of the jury in the Sixteenth- 
street extension proceedings, I might cite numerous others 
which have come to light through the newspapers. For in- 
stance, take the following items : 

One square north of Holmead Manor, from Fourteenth street 
extended to Brightwood avenue. Assessed at $700 per acre; 
equal to 1^ cents to 2i cents per foot. Sold from 30 cents to 
35 cents per foot. 

Five acres in Jones tract, on Sixteenth street extended, just 
beyond Brightwood, sold at $3,500 per acre. Assessed at $300. 

Nine acres opposite Cleveland cottage sold at $6,000 per acre. 
Assessed at $150 per acre. 

March 29, 1903, 4 acres joining the Catholic U.niversity 
grounds sold for $4,500 per acre. Assessed at $700 per acre. 

November, 1894, Dumblane farm, 100 acres, sold for $150,000. 
Assessed at $150 per acre. 

Twenty-nine and one-half acres on Rock Creek Ford road, 
plat 6, assessed at $150 per acre. Total value, $4,430. 

Rosedale, Tennallytown road, assessed in 1893 for $300 an 
acre. Sold for more than $3,000 per acre. 

February, 1894, 14 acres sold for $185,000, or $13,214 an 
acre. Assessed at $6,730 per acre. 

Fifty acres between Brookland and Metropolis View sold 
to a syndicate of Washington. New York, and Richmond men 
for $107,000. Assessed at $;::5,832. 

From all these citations it is evident that the land of the 
District of Columbia is not taxed as under the law it should 
be, and shows that were the National Government to assume 
the entire cost of the District of Columbia, as some people 
would have it do, that no one would be benefited except the 
landowners. From the report of the committee before cited, 
page 9, I find these words: 

They (the landowners) would still demand from tenants the full 
rental value of land regardless of the remission in the assessment on 
it, and the effect of this net increase in the profits of landowning 
would be to raise the selling value of land and to greatly stimulate 
land speculation. Thus the effect of such liberality toward the Fed- 
eral District on the part of Congress would ultimately be only to in- 
crease enormously a few large fortunes and to drive a greater numbei 
of citizens into narrower quarters and make it more difficult for then 
to li^e. 

7021 



40 

It is inconceivKble how the method of assessment which now 

obtains in the District of Columbia can be reconciled with the 

law governing the assessment of taxes, which I cited at the 

beginning of my remarks, namely, that — 

All real estate in the District of Columbia subject to taxation, in- 
cluding improvements tliereon, shall be assessed at not less than two- 
thirds of the true value thereof. 

This law appears to be habitually violated in the District 
assessor's oflSce. The facts above stated prove that it is en- 
tirely disregarded. 

In the article of Mr. Oyster we find him making virtually the 
same charges and stating the answer of the assessor. Mr. 
Oyster said : 

That tax dodging, a species of graft, is one of the greatest evils of 
this day and generation is conceded by every honest man, and that 
Washington has its full quota of tax dodgers and grafters is self-evident. 
In my judgment the assessors are more responsible for this shameful 
condition of affairs than the owners of property, at least so far as real 
estate is concerned. 

" It is not only wrong, but it is unsafe," said ex-President Harrison in 
a speech before the Union League Club, of Chicago, in 189S, " to make a 
show in our homes and on the street that is not made in the tax returns. 
This country can not continue to exist half taxed and half free. Each 
person has a personal interest — a pecuniary interest — in the tax returns 
of his neighbor. We are members of a graat partnership, and it is the 
right of each to know what every other member is contributing to the 
partnership and what he is taking from it. It is not a private affair; 
it is a public concern of the first importance." 

Thus encouraged by the words of the honest man and great statesman 
above quoted, I make hold to challenge the fairness of the past and pres- 
ent assessments of real estate and personal property in this District. 

TESTIMONY OF EXPERTS. 

In 1892, under oath before a select committee of the Hoiise of Repre- 
sentatives appointed " to inquire into all alleged irregularities pertain- 
ing to assessments in the District of Columbia." Samuel Phillips, ex- 
president of the Washington and Georgetown Railroad Company, a large 
owner of real estate, and an expert on the value of such property, said: 
" I have been familiar with every assessment made in Washington during 
the past thirty years, and there has never been one which has not been 
viciously defective, bearing severely on some, who were generally the 
poorer class, with inexpensive improvements, and favoring the richer, 
with large and important buildings. * * * The rich man will prob- 
ably get off with the payment of one-half the taxes that are placed upon 
the poorer men." 

A number of other experts on real estate values gave similar evidence 
before that committee, which is printed in House Report No. 1469, Fifty- 
second Congress, first session. 

PETWORTH PROTESTS. 

With these statements in mind, and after investigation, having reason 
to believe that all subsequent assessments had been " viciously defective," 
I introduced, and the Petworth Citizens' Association, in April, 1905, 
unanimously adopted, a series of resolutions setting forth the above 
facts, and requested the assessors to correct the injustice complained of 
by assessing all property equitably, on the basis of value, " without fear 
or favor," as required by law. 

THE ASSESSOR'S STATEMENT. 

In reply to these resolutions Hopewell H. Darneille issued a statement 
addressed to the Commissioners in defense of the board of assessors, in 
which he asserted that certain statements in the resolutions of the Pet- 
worth Association were unjust and conveyed " an imputation which the 
board of assessors justly resents." In the statement referred to he also 
said : " The assessing of either real or personal property is, in the ab- 
stract, purely a matter of opinion based upon experience and compari- 
son. * * * I do not undertake to defend the action of the. author- 
ities Intrusted \iith the assessment of real estate for the past thirty 
7021 



41 



years, but \vi /b a full kn&wledge of the records of this office. I can state 
that I know of no radical departures from what values should have 
been. * * * In regard to the discrimination in favor of large hold- 
ings, it may or may not be that property for years has been assessed 
unjustly, in that small homes have paid from 25 to 50 per cent higher 
rate, but certain it is that such is not the case now. Both large and 
small properties are assessed on the same basis." 

The majority of taxpayers — and every man and woman pays taxes 
directly or indirectly — will, doubtless, agree with Mr. Darneille that the 
assessing of property in the abstract has been " purely a matter of 
opinion," and, in a very large number of cases, very poor opinion, indeed. 

If " with a full knowledge of the records of his office." the assessor 
knows of " no radical departures from what values should have been,' 
then I respectfully suggest that he "store his 'mind with useful knowl- 
edge " by reading House Report No. 1469, above referred to. 

DISAGREES WITH THE ASSES.SOE. 

Notwithstanding Mr. Darneille's assertion that " both large and small 
properties are assessed on the same basis,"- under the new assessment 
an examination of the assessments on a large number of improvements 
in different sections of the city has demonstrated to my satisfaction 
that the assessments on that class of property vary from about 40 to 
60 per cent of true value, and in exceptional cases still higher on small 
improvements, averaging about 50 per cent for the District, the ad- 
vantage, as usual, being in favor of the larger and more valuable 
building. 

Nor does the complaint stop with the method of the assess- 
ment of lands and their improvements. Mr. Oyster urges the 
following complaint against the method of assessing personal 
property : 

There also appears to be a very large screw loose somewhere In the 
personal tax appraisement machinery. This class of property in Wash- 
ington is alleged to be assessed at 100 per cent of true value, and on 
that basis amounted to $26,575,819.66 last year. 

Compare our $26,500,000 assessment on personal property on a 100 
per cent basis with such cities as Cleveland and Cincinnati on a 60 
per cent basis, with San Francisco on a 65 per cent basis, and with 
Detroit on a 100 per cent basis, and consider what the great difference 
between the assessments in those cities and Washington means. Does 
it mean what has been frequently charged by Senators and Represent- 
atives in debate on the floors of Congress, that this District is the 
paradise for tax dodgers?" ^. ■ ^-u -f 

The following are the assessments on personal property in the cities 
named (see Census Bulletin No. 20, p. 440) for the year 1903 : 



City. 



New York 

Chicago 

Philadelphia . 

Boston 

Cleveland 

San Francisco 
Cincinnati ... 

Detroit 

Providence... 



Popula- 
tion. 



716, 139 
873, 880 
367, 716 
594,618 
414,950 
355, 919 
332,934 
309, 619 
186, 742 



Per ct. 
100 
20 
100 
100 
60 
65 
60 
100 
100 



866,092 
991, 052 
501,825 
155, 523 
851,910 
554, 179 
785, 700 
671,860 
241,080 



Cleveland, only one-fourth larger in population than Washington, in 
1903 on a basis of only 60 per cent of true value, assessed double the 
amount of personal property assessed in Washington in 1905, on a basis 
of 100 per cent of true value. On the Washington basis the assessment 
in Clevelpnd would have been about $88,000,000, about three and one- 
third times our assessment. San Francisco, not much larger than 
Washington in population, in 1903, on a basis of 65 per cent of true 
value assessed over four times as much as our assessment in 190o. 
On the Washington basis of 100 per cent the assessment in San Fran- 
cisco would have been about $172,000,000, six and one-half times the 
assessment here in 1905. , i.. ., 

What is the trouble with the Washington personal tax machiner: > 
Is it with the machine or with the engineers? If the trouble is with 
7021 



42 

the machine, then Congress should reconstruct it. If not, then the 
assessors should rigidly enforce the law, and all those within its reach 
should honestly obey it and " render unto Caesar the things which are 
Caesar's." 

And there is no proper machinery for correcting these abuses ; 
for whenever a taxpayer appeals from an assessment on his 
property the appeal lies from the man who made it in one ca- 
pacity to the same man in another capacity. The board of 
equalization should be an entirely different board from the 
board of assessors. 

2. The enormous outlay or expense. — The regular force in the 
assessor's office consists of thirty men ; one at $4,000 ; two at 
$2,000 each ; three at $1,400 each ; seven at $1,200 each ; three 
at $3,000 each ; one at $1,500 ; eight at $1,000 each ; two at $900 
each, and two at $600 each. In addition to this the appropria- 
tion bill for 1905-6 carried $2,500 for temporary relief. The 
salary roll was $43,000. The total expenditure for the assess- 
or's office is placed in the report of the Commissioners of the 
District of Columbia for 1905 at $64,397. 

The salary account in the assessor's office for the city of 
Buffalo for the same period was $21,753 ; other expenses, $1,914 ; 
total, $23,669. 

The Washington office is complicated to the extreme, and the 
expense account entirely too large. 

The department of assessors cost Pittsburg, for the year end- 
ing January 31, 1905, $37,000, or $27,397 less than Washington. 

The assessment of the revenue for the city of St. Louis for 
the year ending April 10, 1905, was $70,360, or but $5,963 more 
than Washington, although double in population and nearly 
double in wealth. 

3. The system of exemptions. — The fact that the United 
States pays one-half of the expenses of the District of Colum- 
bia seems to have led the local population to the idea that 
property and privileges in the District should be taxed at one- 
half the rate paid by the people of other cities. By the act of 
June 11, 1878, directing the Commissioners of the District to 
make estimates of the probable expenses for the ensuing year, 
the following pro\ision is made : 

To the extent to which Congress shall approve of said estimates. Con- 
gress shall appropriate the amount of 50 per cent thereof, and the 
remaining 50 per cent shall be levied and assessed upon the taxable 
property and privileges in said District other than the property of the 
United States and of the District of Columbia. 

This provision is ambiguous. It does not define taxable 
property ; and the Commissioners have exercised a very broad 
discretion in the matter of declaring particular pieces of prop- 
erty nontaxable or exempt. 

In 1904 the total assessed value of land exempt in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia was $177,306,418, and the total assessed value 

7021 



43 

of improvements exempt was $100,600,430, making a grand total 
of $283,906,848, which was at that time 57 per cent of the en- 
tire assessed value of property in the District. 

The property exempt comprised not only property belonging 
to the United States and the District of Columbia, but also 
property devoted to religious, charitable, and educational uses. 
The total valuation of exempted property under the last three 
heads was $12,616,686. 

Considering the rapid increase of holdings by religious, char- 
itable, and educational institutions in the District, I heartily 
concur in a suggestion contained in the report of the assessor 
for the year 1902, which is : 

Immunity from participation m the expense of the m'lnlf/Pfiity 'f^,^ 
privilege which should be sparingly granted. That ^ statute shouia 
he enacted clearly defining what property is efemptfiom taxation, um^ 
fining the same to institutions conducted wholly for public benefit, ano 
leaving as little discretion as possible with the ^flicials of the Govern 
ment, thus avoiding opportunities for and claims of discrimination. 

I trust that the Members of the House will give these matters 
which I have presented the consideration which they deserve. 

Tuesday, March 20, 1906. 
The House being in the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
Hi the Union and having under consideration the hill (H- K._ lo* ,''!.) 
makfng appropriation! fSr the legislative, executive and judicial ex^ 
penses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1 JOT, ana 
for other purposes — 
Mr. MORRELL said : 

Mr. Chairman : My attention has been called to certain arti- 
cles which have, from time to time, appeared in one of tlie 
leading journals of Washington, criticising a speech which I 
made on the comparative expenditures of Washington and cer- 
tain other cities, and an effort has been made to discredit the 
figures which I presented. 

Great stress is laid in these articles upon Bulletin No. 20 of 
the Census Bureau, and while the tables shown on pages 464, 
470, Jxnd 476 of that document bear out the figures which I gave, 
yet'l may state for the information of the House that the tables 
I presented were made up from the auditor's reports for 1904 of 
the cities with which 1 compared Washington a year later than 
the census document. 

The method of refutation adopted is that which in legal par- 
lance is known as " confession and avoidance." The chief mat- 
ter of avoidance of these newspaper articles is to regard the 
remarkable differences disclosed by my figures, not as the result 
of municipal extravagance, but as differences growing out of the 
problems peculiar to Washington's condition. We are told that 
the conditions which surround Washington are unknown else- 
where Other cities have easy sailing, while the condition of 
Washington is peculiar. There is some slight difference of 
7021 



44 

names, and other slight difEerences of method, but the main 
conditions of municipal expense are about the same everywhere. 
A certain number of people in a given area have to be governed. 
It costs more in Washington than elsewhere in cities of the 
same grade. The reason is not attributable so much to these 
difCerences of condition as to differences in management and 
municipal control. But we have heard so often that Washing- 
ton is the best governed city in the world that at last we have 
come to believe it; and when a presentation is made disclosing 
enormous weaknesses of administration we find it difficult to 
believe; but when the presentation can not be denied, the next 
best thing is to avoid it. 

In my speech I gave a table of figures showing gross ex- 
penditures of seven cities, and followed this by another table 
showing net or ordinary expenditures of the same cities. . These 
figures are either right or they are wrong. That they were 
right is evidenced by the fact that they have not been denied. 
They stand unquestioned, except that census figures for 1903 
are offered as a sort of buffer to ward off the force of my charge. 
Instead of acting as a buffer, however, they support every line 
of my indictment. My figures, however, were not taken from 
Census Bulletin No. 20 for 1903, a mere second-hand presenta- 
tion, but were taken from the first-hand reports of the auditors 
or comptrollers of the cities named for the year 1904 and com- 
pared with figures taken from the report of the Commissioners 
of the lyistrict of Columbia. Every figure shows an actual ex- 
penditure of money as vouched by the auditing officers, whose 
duty it was to make the reports. 

A definition was then given by me, a definition originated by 
these same auditing officers, by which the difference between 
gross and net expenditures might be ascertained. The total of 
ordinary expenditure was given by the Commissioners of the 
District of Columbia, as well as the total of gross expenditure, 
so that I had nothing to do but to set down this total in both 
places as the gross and the *et expenditure of Washington. 
The auditors and comptrollers of nearly all of the other cities 
had made like distinctions, so that tn those cases it was merely 
a work of transcription. In the few cases where these dis- 
tinctions had not been made by the auditors it was easy to apply 
the definition and ascertain the ordinary expenditure for every 
city. Great stress is laid by them upon the difficulty which sur- 
rounds calculations of this sort, and a whole column has been 
devoted by the writer to let the people know how great a task 
I had attempted, how intricate it was to the uninitiated, and 
how absolutely I had floundered in my effort to clarify what the 
writer averr'^d I did not understand. 
7021 



45 

Auditors have sworn duties to perform, and in certifying over 
their signatures to certain sums of money which they term 
gross expenditures and other sums which they term net or ordi- 
nary expenditures are but worliing to let the uninitiated linow 
the truth about expenditures, however much it may be desired 
by some to befog and mystify the subject. These auditors also 
certify the constituent items which make certain figures repre- 
sentative of gross expenditures, and anyone by omitting these 
items may easily ascertain the net expenditure. 

I gave the absolute totals for gross and net expenditures of 
the city of Washington and of six other cities. They were not 
percentages, but amounts. They were not deductions, they 
were acts. These figures showed, for gross expenditures, that 
Washington spent about $3,000,000 more than did Buffalo, a 
city that in 1900 had a population 27 per cent larger. They 
showed also that Washington spent almost $4,000,000 more than 
did Newark, N. J., a city of only 12 per cent less population. 
These expenditures show that Washington spent almost as 
much money as the city of St. Louis, a city of more than twice 
the population of Washington. That it spent almost as much 
as the city of Pittsburg, and a far greater amount in propor- 
tion than Baltimore or Boston. 

In net expenditures the figures showed that Washington ex- 
pended 32 per cent more than Buffalo and 36 per cent more 
than Newark ; that St. Louis, though twice as large and with 
an area about equal to that of Washington, spent only 18 per 
cent more; Pittsburg, but 2 per cent more, and Baltimore, 34 
per cent more. 

They admit these totals and avoid their force by creating con- 
ditions which, as we shall see, exist only in the minds of their 
creators. Now, what are these special pleas of avoidance? 

Special plea in avoidance No. 1. — Here it is, as set out in the 
columns of the city paper : 

It (Washington) bears the cost of the Judiciary from the highest to 
the lowest court, save the Supreme Court of the United States, whereas 
in the other cities only the municipal courts of high and low degree 
are paid for by the city. 

Let us investigate these facts. 

The auditor of St. Louis, in his report for 1904-5, names the 
courts for which that city pays expenses to cover the city and 
county in relation to the State. The courts named by him are : 

Circuit court, circuit court of criminal causes, court of criminal cor- 
rection, and probate court. 

The amount given by him as expenditure for these purposes, 
as paid by the city, was $100,994. The auditor for the District 
of Columbia for 1904 gave the expenditures for the courts of 
the District of Columbia, being "salaries employees, supreme 

7021 



46 

eourt, court of appeals, and defending suits in Court of Claims," 
at $79,149. 

It will thus be seen not only that this plea was false so far 
as St. Louis is concerned, but that the expense of the judiciary 
of the District of Columbia, despite the enormity of the dis- 
parity of conditions as set out by the critic, was the most ra- 
tional of all the expenses of the District. 

In addition to this, the purely police-court expenditures for 
St. Louis were $124,879, while the same expenditures in Wash- 
ington were $G0,643. But this is not all. As further expense 
of the city of St. Louis, growing out of its relation to the county 
and State as paid by the city, the auditor notes the following 
seriatim : 

Costs in misdemeanor cases $38, 000 

Justice of the peace courts 94, 866 

Jury commissioner 25, 160 

Jury and witness fees 00, 000 

Jail 42, 480 

State reform scliool, boys 15, 000 

State reform sclaool, girls 700 

Convicts at State lunatic asylum 200 

Probationary delinquents 5, 200 

Court-house and Four Courts building 35, 837 

In all, for the administration of justice, exclusive of 

municipal courts 478, 438 

In all, for the administration of justice, including municipal 

courts, §124,879 603, 317 

When these figures are set in contrast with the paltry figures 
which ax'e paid for the administration of justice in the District 
of Columbia in all the courts of high and low degree, the abso- 
lute falsity of the claim that Washington pays an expenditure 
for this purpose which other cities do not becomes apparent. 
It also shows that the conditions surrounding Washington, so 
far as the administration of justice is concerned, are much 
more favorable than in St. Louis. 

■Special plea in avoidance A^o. 2. — It is stated that " Washing- 
ton is properly credited with expenditures which in other cities 
are made by county and State." The auditor of the city of St. 
Louis in the same report further sets out as expense of the city 
of St. Louis, and as paid out of the revenues of St. Louis, the 
further items growing out of its relation to the county and State, 
as follows : 

Assessment of revenue $75, 800 

Coroner's office , 33, 204 

Eleemosynary institutions and charities : City dispensary, city 

hospital, female hospital, insane asylum, poorhouse, and 

house of refuge 652, 426 

Foundlings 15, 000 

Indigent pupils at State deaf and dumb school GOO 

Contingent fund _ 12, 500 

Recorder of deeds 57, 739 

In all —— 847, 367 

Adding to this the expense for administration of justice, $478,400, 
we have a total of $1,325,805 as expenditure paid by St. Louis for gen- 
eral expenses growing out of its relation to tte city and county. 

7021 



47 

Evidently there was no data at hand and Imagination was 
drawn upon for assertions which are worthless in the light of the 
data furnished by the auditor of St. Louis. I shall set out in an 
appendix the court and other expenses growing out of the rela- 
tion of city to county and State for other cities, which will show 
still further the weakness of the statements made. 

Again the statement is made that " the insurance department 
is everywhere except in the District supported entirely by the 
State." 

This is a sweeping assertion, but, like the other assertions, Is 
merely sophistical and contentious. 

In the first place, the city of Washington expends but the 
trifling sum of $7,812 for this great bureau. The department of 
insurance is ordinarily located at capitals of States, and, un- 
fortunately for the cities chosen by me for comparison with 
Washington, only one of these happened to be a capital. There- 
fore five of the cities had no such department, and therefore paid 
nothing for it. The city of Boston, however, is a capital, and I 
hardly think that so far as this city is concerned that the as- 
sertion is true. The auditor for the city of Boston in his report 
for 1904-5 certified to the people of Boston, the people directly 
interested in the matter, that that city had paid a lump sum of 
$92.j,800 as its proportion growing out of its relation to county 
and State. This sum was charged up to the city of Boston, and 
appeared in, its gross and net expenditures, and to that extent 
negatives the sweeping assertions of plea No. 3. 

St. Louis, although not a capital city, paid the State $1,711,- 
312 to cover statutory obligations of the city in its relation to 
the State, and we suppose that this would include the infinites- 
imal obligation covered by the so-called " department of insur- 
ance." However, if the alignment of $7,812 will help my Wash- 
ington critics to release Washington from the charge of extrava- 
gant expenditure I cheerfully concede it. 

Plea in avoidance No, 4. — 

Other functions performed by State or county officers are here per- 
formed by officers of the District of Columbia. In respect of schools 
contributions are usually made by the State or county, if it be only to 
the extent of giving the normal school training for teachers, while in a 
number of cities there is State or county aid for city schools. 

The objection to this plea is that it is altogether wrong, so 
far as the element of State or county aid for city schools is 
concerned. By State laws a State tax is levied for educational 
purposes upon city and country alike. In apportioning this 
money the city gets back in all cases a less sum than the tax 
amount paid into the State treasury. In no other way could 
public education for weak districts in the country be main- 
tained. Large cities not only educate their own children, but 

7021 



48 

through this State tax educate the children of the rural dis- 
tricts. The amount received by the city from the State is not 
State aid in any sense of the term, but simply its pro rata part 
of the apportionment. No matter what this amount may be, 
it is charged up by the auditor in both gross and net expendi- 
ture, and as such appears in the figures given by me. The 
same argument applies to county aid. The richer cities of the 
county contribute through county taxation a sum of money 
which makes possible the public education of all the children 
of the county. So that in its last analysis the cities contribute 
through State and county taxes to State and county education, 
and receive back for their own educational purposes a less sum 
than was paid out. This sum, however, small or large, is ex- 
pended by the cities and is audited regularly by the city officers 
as ne^ and gross expenditure. The difference is made up by 
municipal taxation. 

The auditor of the District of Columbia, in his itemized ac- 
count of expenditures for 1904, nowhere brings into the account 
the item of normal schools. Hence, so far as the auditor's re- 
port is concerned, Washington bore no such expense, unless 
that expense be included in some other item. The total ex- 
penditure for schools in Washington for 1904 was $1,090,371. 

The city of Boston sustains at the public expense of the city 
several very important schools unknown to the Washington 
schedule, and in 1904 paid out something more than $111,558 
for its normal school instruction. The salaries paid to the 
Teachers' Training School of Baltimore was something more 
than $23,000. Buffalo also maintains its system of normal 
schQOls, which are paid for out of the revenues of the city. 
The normal department of the Pittsburg High School is sup- 
ported entirely from the city revenues. Cleveland contributes 
$17,900 annually for the support of normal training, which is 
charged to city expenditures. The city of Cincinnati supports 
its normal schools for the training of teachers in the same 
way. The Buffalo City Training School for Teachers and the 
Buffalo State Normal School, although in the same town, are 
distinct institutions and supported from distinct funds. 

Plea in avoidance No. 5.— In these articles it is staled : 

Again the charities and correctional institutions, including prisons 
and reformatories, are here borne entirely by the District of Columbia, 
whereas in the cities generally they are carried chiefly and often en- 
tirely by the State or county. 

This is another sweeping assertion, and, like the others, may 
be demolished by simple presentation of the facts. It will be 
admitted that the charities of the District of Columbia, as set 
out in the report of its auditor for 1904, have been well taken 
lare of. The aggregate expenditure for. this purpose was 

7021 



49 

$379,265, and iucluded the Reform School for Girls, Reform 
School, Garfield Hospital, Columbia Hospital for Women, sup- 
port of convicts and prisoners. Board of Children's Guardians, 
Central Dispensary, Eastern Dispensary, Women's Clinic, 
Washington Home, National Association for Colored Women, 
Newsboys and Children's Aid Society, Washington Hospital, 
German Orphanage, Women's Christian Association, Young 
Men's Christian Association, Hope and Help Mission, Columbia 
Institution, jail warden, and St. Ann's Infant Asylum. Of 
this item, $79,919 went for the support of convicts and prisoners 
and $2,000 for the jail warden. 

Now, what have other cities done? The auditor of the city 
of Pittsburg for 1004 reported an expenditure for charities of 
$151,117 apart from their prisons, which were supported en 
tlrely at the expense of the city, but the exact amount of the 
expenditure can not be separated from the total. In Buffalo 
the expenditure for the poor was $120,535. This includes an 
item for hospitals, homes, and asylums of $57,000. 

The city of St. Louis expends upon public charities and cor 
rections, according to the report of the auditor for 1904, $910,524. 
being city hospital, new city hospital, emergency hospital, insane 
at State institutions, female hospital, insane hospital, poor- 
house, house of refuge, jail, woi'khouse, care of foundlings, deaf 
and dumb, insane, reform and industrial, juvenile delinquents, 
and probationary system. Batimore in 1904 expended $490,907 
for ordinary charity and correctional expenses and $17,676 for 
extraordinary. Boston spent as follows: 

City hospital, relief station, Haymarket square, and conva- 
lescent home $486, 994 

Children's institutional department 186, 017 

Insane hospital department 329, 321 

Pauper institutions department 213, 429 

Overseeing poor department 131, 284 

Besides this Boston paid something more than $900,000 to the 
State as its expense in its relation to county and State for 
courts, prisons, etc. 

It will thus be seen that plea in avoidance No. 5 has no 
foundation whatever. 

Plea in avoidance No. 6. — 

The District of Columbia, paying for filtration plant, sewage-disposal 
system, railway terminal, District government building, and other ex- 
traordinary improvements, can not be fairly compared with cities which 
have less extensive projects on hand. 

The gentleman' should have continued and said, to make 

his remarks pertinent, that the cities cited by me had less 

extensive systems than Washington. Inasmuch as he did not 

do so it may be fairly inferred that all of these cities had equally 

as great an expenditure for these permanent improvements 

as did AVashington. The tables for gross and net expenditure 

7021 4 



50 

contain these very items, and in my speech reference was made 
to these things. The Commissioners in their report for 1904 
put the net expenditures, exclusive of those for the water de- 
partment and expenditures on account of special and trust 
funds, at $9,079,908. I used these figures in my speech. The 
auditor in his report places the gross expenditure at $10,257,- 
547. The difference between these items is what the city of 
Washington pays for the extraordinary expenditure upon fil- 
tration plant, sewage disposal, etc., which expenditure, of course, 
is spread out over a number of years. The difference is 
$1,177,639. The difference between the net and gross expendi- 
ture of St. Louis is $1,184,985, and St. Louis has as many great 
projects as Washington. The difference between net and gross 
for Boston is about $10,000,000, for Baltimore about $4,000,000. 
for Buffalo about $1,100,000, for Pittsburg about $1,000,000. 
So that so far as the cities used by me for comparison are con 
cerned they are every whit as public spirited as is Washington 
and are carrying upon their shoulders enterprises fully as stu- 
pendous as any of those adverted to by my critic. 

I now propose to show a few of the expenditures borne by the 
cities I have named which are not borne by the city of Wash- 
ington nor the District of Columbia. 

FIRST. ELECTION EXPENSES. 

Washington pays nothing for this purpose. In 1904 other 
cities expended as follows : 

Boston 1162,470 

Baltimore 107, 605 

St. Louis 164, 000 

Buffalo 23,473 

Pittsburg 18, 599 

SECOND. EXPENSES OF LEGISLATION. 

Washington pays nothing for this purpose, all the general 

legislation of the District being enacted by the Congress of the 

United States. In other cities the following amounts are paid 

to common councils and boards connected with these councils : 

Bufifalo $49, 148 

St. Louis i§'446 

Baltimore 5o, 730 

Boston : „„ 

Aldermen 29, 439 

Council 21,546 

Incidental 9,702 

Committees 17, 208 

Common council 30, 201 

THIRD. PARK EXPENSES. 

The grounds around the Capitol, the Congressional Library, 
Botanic Gardens, War and Navy Department, Weather Bu- 
reau, Experimental Gardens and Grounds, Agricultural Depart- 
ment, Department of Commerce and Labor are cared for at the 
expense of the United States alone. The Zoological Park and 
7021 



51 

Rock Creek Park are cared for at the joint expense of the Dis- 
trict of Columbia and the United States. The word "park" in 
Wasliington lias a fat different meaning to what it does in other 
cities. In Washington every little piece of ground in front of 
the residences along any street is called a park, and forms a 
part of the city's parking system. In addition to this, there 
are parks all over the city in kind like the parks of other cities. 
The first species of parks, the grass plots in front of resi- 
dences, so far as curbing and sidewalking is concerned, has its 
expense cast upon the District of Columbia, one-half of which 
is paid by the United States. As to the grass itself in front of 
these residences, the expense for its care is borne by the occu- 
pant of the premises. The immense stretches of ground around 
the public buildings, which form the chief part of Washington's 
real park system, has the expense of their care cast entirely 
upon the United States, while the Zoological Garden and the 
Rock Creek Park share their expense as hereinbefore named. 
It will thus be seen that while Washington has many and beau- 
tiful parks their expense as to care is to a large part borne 
entirely by the United States, and only to a limited extent by 
the District of Columbia in connection with the United States. 
This is not true as to other cities, many of whom have parks 
and park areas equally as numerous and beautiful as Washing 
ton. These parks in other cities are exempt from all taxation, 
while in the District of Columbia a valuation is set upon them 
in the arrangement by which the United States pays into the 
coffers of the District of Columbia, as an assumed tax upon its 
buildings and grounds in the District, an amount equal to the 
amount raised by taxation upon all the other real property of 
the District. In other words, the United States pays one-half 
the taxes upon property in the District of Columbia, and in so 
doing pays the District of Columbia a tax upon large parking 
areas which in other cities are exempt and produce no revenue 
whatever. The following table will show what other cities are 
doing in this line : 

Park department expenses in I90i. 

Boston $646, 864 

Baltimore ?^^' l^i 

St. Louis 192, 49o 

Buffalo 153, 713 

Pittsburg 137, 510 

FOURTH. POLICF. EXPENDITURES. 

The actual police expenditure for Washington In 1904 was 
$818,179, a greater amount than that paid by either Buffalo or 
Pittsburg. In addition to this, the Government of the United 
States appropriated sums approximating $300,000 for watchmen, 
exclusive of sergeants-at-arms and doorkeepers. Of this sum, 

7021 



52 

$29,000 was divided in equal parts between the District of Co- 
lumbia and the United States. 

From all these considerations it appears that while Wash- 
ington may have some expenses in kind unlike other cities, that 
other cities have also a series of expenses that are unknown to 
Washington. The tables outlined in my speech, instead of 
being impaired by the comparisons forced upon me by this news- 
paper criticism, are reeuforced thereby. 

FIFTH. TAXATION. 

There is a general impression throughout the country that 
the city of Washington, like all other cities, bears the whole 
burden of municipal taxation, and this impression has been 
created and fostered. This is not true. The Government 
duplicates without cost of assessment or collection whatever 
amount of taxes the District of Columbia raises upon its own 
account. In other words, the United States Government pays 
one-half of the taxes of the District of Columbia. Other cities 
are not so favored. The taxes from all sources raised in the 
District in 1904 were $4,707,236. The Government paid for that 
year $4,672,253. 

This enables Washington to tax public buildings and parks, 
a thing other cities are not permitted to do. Buffalo has ex- 
empted property belonging to the following persons and cor- 
porations : 

United States ?6, 559, 775 

State of New York 3, 849, 995 

Erie County 1, 774, 515 

City of Buffalo 10, 908, 690 

Public schools 3, 903, 000 

ITivate schools , 1, 361, 390 

Religious corpoi-ations 9, 631, 000 

Cemeteries 895, 000 

Charitable associations 1, 860, 000 

Scientific associations 931, 000 

Pensionaries 261, 000 

Hospital 590, 220 

Miscellaneous 22,990 

Total 42, 527, 825 

The exempted property in Boston belonging to the city of 

Boston alone is more than $79,000,000. 

The following is a list of exempted property in St. Louis : 

Public buildings $4, 347, 284 

Parks 12, 069, 044 

Fire department 995, 000 

Police department 1, 04S, 000 

Water—-- 10, OOo, 000 

Harbor and wharf 290, 000 

Miscellaneous 1, 067, 000 

Total - 29, 816. 328 

This excludes all Government buildings and all school and 

church build'ugs, which are likewise exempt. 

7021 



53 

Washington in 1004 exempted for District buildings, churches, 
hospitals, and colleges the insignificant sura of $1,214,700. 

The conditions, so far as the actual facts disclose them, favor 
Washington. All other cities have no guardian to whom they 
may appeal and upon whom they may cast an undue part of 
their legitimate expenditures. 

From the facts and figures which 1 have presented it may be 
said that the reasoning process of my friend Mr. Deadwood, who, 
I understand, is the author of all unsigned articles, is about as 
corrugated as the wrinlcles in my brow when I try to think, and 
the deductions of Mr. Deadwood are about as ambiguous and 
difiicult to find the meaning of as it is to find what the De V. in 
my name stands for. 

What a glorious thing is a beautiful bright star night when 
one looks up to the firmament of heaven, an illumined mass of 
celestial bodies ! Astronomei's on such a night are in their ele- 
ment, not merely defining one recognized group from another, 
but nominating each individual illumined heavenly body from 
another. At such times even the layman gazes heavenward in 
admiration, and with his limited knowledge picks out the North 
Star, the Dipper, and other known celestial groups, and at such 
times appreciates the true force and value of that passage in the 
Scriptures which says : " There are also celestial bodies, and 
bodies terrestrial ; but the glory of the celestial is on6, and the 
glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the 
sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the 
stars ; for one star differeth from another star in glory." 

The rays of liglit which in this article have been shed in the 
shape of criticism by the terrestrial luminary, generally so able 
and wise, are scarcely as long as one side of my mustache 
waxed out as I had it for the benefit of the ladies during the 
public school hearings. In fact, the difference between this 
terrestrial luminary in this instance and its celestial namesake 
is so marked that the terrestrial luminary reminds me of the 
perversion of an old nursery rhyme, which runs : 

Twinkle, twinkle. little bat ; 
How I wonder what you're at, 
Up above the world so high, 
Like a tea tray in the sky. 

I ought, I fear, even apologize to the bat. 

I trust that those who are so fond of poking fun will realize 
that there is nothing personal in these last remarks, but that 
they are made purely in the spirit of jest. 

I shall now, Mr. Chairman, having disposed of this matter, go 
and wash my hands aod put on a clean suit of clothes. 
7021 



54 

APPENDIX NO. 1. 

The avjditor of Baltimore named the courts under State de- 
partment expenses as charged to city expenditure as criminal, 
Baltimore City, common pleas, superior, circuit, orphans, ju- 
venile, supreme bench, and justices of the peace, and placed the 
total expenditure at $18G,409, for which he set out an itemized 
account. 

APPENDIX NO. 2. 

The auditor of the city of Boston certified $900,125 as expense 
paid by Boston, growing out of its relation to county and State, 
and which was included in the total net or ordinary expendi- 
ture of my speech. 

Analysis of Census Bulletin No. 20: 

General administration includes all expenses for departments 
and offices, as executive, legislative, law, assessments, collec- 
tions, treasurer, statistics, city hall, elections, etc. 

Notwithstanding Washington has no expense for collecting 
one-half its revenue and no expense for legislative office, nor 
elections, its per capita expense for general administration in 
1903 was greater than Chicago, Baltimore, Cleveland, Pittsburg, 
or Milwaukee. (See Table No. 1.) 

Its expenses for courts were greater than Chicago, Philadel- 
phia, Baltimore, Cleveland, Buffalo, San Francisco, Pittsburg, 
Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Detroit, or New Orleans. (See Table 
No. 1.) 

Police. — Notwithstanding the enormous amounts paid by the 
Government for police, which is not included in these figures, 
the per capita expense for police in 1903 was greater than in 
any city in the Union having a population of 300,000 or more, 
with the exception of New York. That is greater than thirteen 
of the largest cities of the United States, and if the amount paid 
by the Government be included, it will yield a per capita of 
$4.22, or greater than any city in the United States by 83 cents. 
(See Table No. 1.) 

Z^tre.;— The expenses for the fire department were greater than 
Chicago, Philadelphia, or Baltimore, and about equal to St. 
Louis, Cleveland, Pittsburg, and Cincinnati. (See Table No. 1.) 

The expenses for health were greater than Chicago, Balti- 
more, Cleveland, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Detroit, and 
New Orleans. ( See Table No. 1. ) 

The expenses for public charities and corrections per capita 
were greater than any city in the United States. (See Table 
No. 1.) 

The per capita expense for public highways was also greater 
than that for any city iu the United States. (See Table No. 2.) 
7021 



55 

The per capita expense for public sauitation was greater than 
any city in the United States except New Yorls and Boston. 
( See Table No. 2. ) 

Public recreations per capita were greater than New York, 
Philadelphia, St. Louis. Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburg, Cincin- 
nati, Milwaukee, and New Orleans. (See Table No. 2.) 

The aggregate per capita for schools was greater by more 
than 50 per cent than any city having a population of 300,000, 
with the exception ot New York and Boston. (See Table No. 3.) 

The per capita salaries for teachers was greater than any city 
having a population of 300,000, except New York and Boston. 
(See Table No. 3.) 

The miscellaneous expense for schools was greater than any 
other city having a population of 300,000, except New York and 
Boston. (See Table No. 3.) 

The per capita library expense was nearly double that of any 
city in the United States having a population of 300,000, and 
was only excelled by Boston, and in that city by only 1 cent 
(See Table No. 3.) 
7021 



S — 



s a 



.2 2 









-si 









m5 






OOOiO •<)< 



gg 



3S 



56 



[^3 



tooco o 
ys-icco" CO 



sss -s 



SSc5 S 



P S 3 SS 2^ 

c c o o'3 Cl.'-' 

o5oo -3 3 
o2 

HO 



ii 


jHO;oo(N-H(icnt-tot-to 


Si 


ii|§i§esi°sS 


S§SSgSSS?5§5SSSS 


g 




IS 


§gsgiiilslii 


s_s 


|||sgss;|ggb^§ 


ss 


g5?;g5:^^gS^8S 


& 





0?0ii^ GOO Oi 



§ss!8s?S5S'a§? 



3 S ^' O t 



^- 


-H „ 






s? 


gS;58 


SS^gJ^g;^ 


S?i 


n- 




...... 





m<y5c^tDoooibQOO^co',ccciO(N 



§JS:55SSSSSS2gS^ 


s ■ ■ •- 


213 

704 
.^66 
6S9 
137 
298 
690 
012 
140 
899 
816 
935 
441 
210 




«1.84 
.79 
1.54 
1.27 
2.22 
.90 

2.17 
.90 
.91 
.74 
.96 

1.13 


mmmmiumM 





jij^ . c ■■p::^ ^ . 

..co'^ioot^coaso.c-ico'.j* 



7021 



57 



« .• 




si 


5;;SSlggg5S^?ss?? 


t- 


.r 


^? 


^iss? 


^ss^gs 


1 














^'^ 


jj ^ - - 


IH 




S 








11 




1 






^ ti 




e^ 


?3SgS3S3SSSSSSSSS5gJ;S?!SSSSS 


« 3 




^1 


S 


-1 




u 
















::s.s 




"3 


w 




S 








rtrHi-il-irHrtr-lr-ir-ir-'r-i^'r-tr-ir-ir-ir-irHr-ii-ir-IrH ' " l-i 


a 




^^ 


-d 




^t 






iiiiiigiiiiiiiii§5i§^iiss 




S 


|giii§iSigi2siiS"5iS2iS-'-'s" 


s 




^ 






1- B 


gg£gSS5a§SSS5S52SSSSSSS^SSSS§ 


4i 

c3 




g^^^^ NrHrH^^ .H ^^^^^ ^ ^ 












§li§liisg|gssi§Ssilg?;s3gs 


sa 








^ 


|i3¥^"SilS§Ss'i§Sl§Hfa-3'»'-"S 






ai 








^1 


saassssssssssa 


siyji 




gggg 




1 

o 




g - • ■ ■ 












nmmm%%Mmm 


Sis 




Sill 




o 




1 


■^'^T-Sci^'^-oocot^'^'^^ncA^' 






^-i>-^-^- 






































»» 














,.=3 


S£gS§S§SE^S^SS?2g?Sg?£;?3SgS§3 


.2 

c 




l| 


g •^- • • •^•^- -^-oi • • • -^rA^ ■ -rA -^ -^ 


a 








i^iisiissii^isSiiifiiiie 




^ 


S |f |[£[| 1 1 i g'l 1 g|| SK||S5!gS3S52 




^ 


O 










>. 




























"5 

c 

£ 
6 






II 


c 

C 
c 

1 


> 

-I 

1 


§1 




1 
1 




111 


^5 






a 

3 

d 


tj 

5 


SSS;SS§S?3S 


s;s 


g 


g 


§s 


a;3S3g: 


? 


S 


ss? 


? 





T021 









4 


£ 


|8SS5 


gs 


2i 


S 


m""" " 


c4rH 








1 






g 


SiSI 


gl 


n 




S«l^ 


??,?; 










H 




- .cc--^".n 






2 










^ 














M 


S| 


i 






o-^ 










S^ 






S?iSS 


??iK 












.1 


c 


" roa^'^ 


M-a< 










c.^ 


^ 








w 




















2g£§ 










^f 










si 


s 


-H ■ ■ ■ 
















1 






2§S2 


ss 




.9 


3 




■ S"§R?? 


-H-V 


















iS 




^ 




' »«<Nr-J- 


R-" 




g 
















o 




g^ 














o 




^.-: 








^ 


.a 


m 


■^ & 








^ 


Oh 


^ 


« 














g2?1S 
















e 




ft 










g 
1 




« 


1 




r- ■£. o'-H 








s 


" -r'cikrH- 


s§ 


03 








^ 












c^ 


-H OlC-l 04 


4CiO 






^?^ 








is 

.CI 






^s- 


s 






2 




g. 


3 












^SJ^S 


ss 


i 


i 

.a 


o 


3 




sggf^' 


?2"5 


£ 




E^ 






























!^ 














M =3 


i 


iJgSS 


gs 




o 










































Oh 




y 










s 














«^f^ 




















S 


"3 




isiS 


o5 








H 


^ 


1 tcr-'''a<'ic'' 


s^ 


>. 




.o 






•s? 


















t 




■^^ 






w> 


$5 

■J3 o 






03 
O 


>_,Kw"-^'SS 














E 






OOOO -3 3 


S 




i"^ 


>> 






go 


6 




O 




^ap: 










5 


g^ 












1 



SSSSSJ^SSSS 


si-^--""^-- "^ 


^liiiiigil 


812,289 
2,122 
1,683 

946 
2,248 
1, 151 

750 

706 
14 

721 


SS^SggS^JSS 


8 


i^ii^gigsi 


81,514 
1,046 
561 
160 
547 
312 
120 
155 
354 
114 


SgiSSSS^^SS 


o^^^co « 


83,031,470 

2, 425, 303 

1,417,740 

1,101,325 

2,183,073 

20,760 

1,401,987 

174,303 

51,112 

165.594 


SggES^J^gS?! 


jH -^r^ici • • ,A 


smu?.§m 


86,348 

1,549 

1,361 

964 

1,379 

391 

320 

344 

224 

422 


SS£;S?5SlgSSS 


^(Ncj^ui -r-ici "g 


MS 




g.r:cocic<- 


gg?i§S§Sgf5S 


^ •-■-•«-^^^c4 


i=iiiisgii 


2i§g'i 


iissg 


©---•- 














New York, N.Y.. 

Chicago, 111 

Philadelphia, Pa. 
St. Louis, Mo 

Kostnn Muss 


iPlI 


r-i<NeOT(.u: 


«=t-coo.o 



59 



8S8S 


BS 




f;SsSS:SSgg??g^S&Sg3?3gS32S§Sg8 






^cicOrH-M •,N^-cici-5cir4r4^^r^ci<N^<NrH ' " PH 


ssig 


iliiai?l£liiiiis^lljil§£si 






pS'iiSiia'fiWl§iSis5gS-l 


?;_SS3 




;5?3:§s 


§§SS5fi?3§5iSf3S?lc;5SSgS|:3:2SS?J;^g?J 






s. 


^^is 


gigsiiiliiigSISslil'liil^Ks 




^"ggs 


§ 


|3S[2gS^f2SS?i?35J2S§5S§S25SS23'^S 


f:Sgg 


S!5^S£5§SSSSSSgSSSS§Sf2SSSSg 




i 


s -" ^- ■ -^ 




gr-l iH (MlOiH C^ i-H iH 


8§i8£ 


gg^ssgssssssss&ssssgsssss 




s - • -^ - 


iggg 


8iiigiSsiiiiei§iiiSi^^iii 




I 


^§g?S||SSSg§§|Sg^S|S3S^§SS 


S5SS 


Sf=Sg 


S^SSi-^f^Ei^S^JSSSSSiSSggSgGgJigi 


rHrtCJ 


o 

g 


^d -^^ • -c^co^co^co • -co •« -04 ■ •^^- • 


esss 


§SS|ii2|g§|S||iSKS|||g5|2 






S 


|i-is^siiiii^-s|sg||§8s|gE= 






S8SS- 


:;!SS5SSg^S5iSSS2S:gggSf2gSK5S 


.nei rH 


»4 


Igrt •cicir^Mr;c4c4(Nc4r-irH(NM.4cirH-rtr-ir; " rH ci 


ggsss 


iiiii§iiisii§i£iiiisii§^i 












ssss 




If-s 


s 
1 

o 




o 

Q 


11 


llii 

llli^ 




1 
c 

1 


> 


urn 




1 


c 

1 




1 
s 




JhJJS 


3 


S2 


t^ oc 


3SS?^?J 


?5S 


S 


s 


S§3§Sg3 


g§ss 


S 


? 


S 


S 





GO 






Jl 



8 g 



ml 


4 


s 


63 S^ 


■^ 




s a 














g 


?;*:« 




§ ^ 














Payin 
pen 

ies, 
etc. 


5 
^ 


s 


nm 


" 


s s 


2 - 


^?^ 


s 


SSS3 


S 


s s 


£.2l. 


•^ §* 


^ 










« 










w^^S 




■"J" 


sgi 




































So^S 












■g 


CO 




fn 


i S 




^ 










tf 








































<^s 








Ol t> 






a, S. 












1 


S5 


















s i 








t^ 


SS§5 






3 












o 


r^ 


y'-of^ 




s § 




































cocoes 




g ^ 
















^"^- 


S 


s^ 


s 


gjgg 


s 






f^& 


a^ 




" 






0) 


































o 


s 


^• 














5 
g 










g 


o 


° 


°->: 


^1 


g s 


s 


-< 




^ 


"^ 






2 




^05 


r3 


88S 


s 


s s 


§ 




rf"a 


^ 


eocjc^' 


ci 


in" c4 


a 


°n 


g 
























£ 


r^ 




?s 


§^S 


^ 


5 g 
















1 


s 


is'B" 


i 


Si 






s 


s^'- 


o 


S '^ 
































;4 


s 


^^5 








bo 
























?i 




^ 


So o8 


c:] 


g i 




bo 


s 


g 


III 




i i 








o 
























































t» 




I : : :S 




^S 




:!:! 




s : : :" 


- 


.2^ 




a 




1 L't:'^ 


■5> 










^ SM 




a 




^ o.c.co.<i> ;5 




3 

a 




1 2i = 2-3 ^&? 


o 




















o 




O 


1 




5§^ 

















SSSr 


i^^SSS3 


g 


i^iiiiiiii 


Si 


^SSSSSSSSf 




8 '^ 


753 
933 
743 
315 
598 
260 
876 
201 
160 
541 


81.69 81,302 
1.05 371 
. 75 -936 

1. 38 210 

2. 39 25 
.55 340 

1.311 244 
.85' 147 
. 14' 923 

1.371 247 


iiii^iisii 


86, 286 
1,960 

843 
1,418 
293 
643 
324 
60 
471 


SSSSSSSSESS 


g — -- - 


86,248,202 

1,484,619 

1,409,7.55 

707, 952 

1,058,584 

506, 585 

671, 804 

400, 936 

260,803 

493, 366 


sssssgg^ss 




^?j(Ne^-*iHC<c<ic<es 


mmmjm^ 


mmmmnt 






SSg5^SS§?SS 


477 87 
771; 4 
019 3 
163 4 
024 8 
778, 3 
20r 5 
403 4 

156 5 


828,091 
8,471 
5, 2f)5 
2,859 
5,007 
1,848 
2,335 
1,651 
1,333 
1,737 


m 


: '.i :4 

filial 




.-HCSCOTT 


o«5f ooog 





61 



^^^ ■.?^\ 



:gSS 



gS; 






ssss 



Heidi's 

(Nr-I(M 



e4 c4 <N r-I 






•lis? 



^5S 5§§S§ 



3 (M CO ift O iC CO Oi iC i-l CO CJ ' 



t^OiOOCOi-HTj^OCOQOaat^OOrf 



COCOCOOOiCiOt^«>T-liOC^'^C4C^CO 
Tt< i-H rH ri Tj* 00 rH 04 W rH fH iH t-l »H 



:f2SSgS?5§lgg3SF25§SSg 


8SSgSSf:g 


is- "■ • 




ii§i§3isiimiisii 


iiSigii 



■I lO CO 00 rH CC O^ «0 ^ CO t^ 1-4 t-l iC 05 i-H O • -^ Irt • "O 



OXOO-WMTj<OOtOCMl-mi:^>CIMO>IMr 



IH 0« rHiH 



; :!; g g s g -"'s s g s s sfs 5 53 ^1 



-■Or-(«n«OiOT-IWOC»OC 
<00«Ot»C0005«)Ot^COI 



5^s§j 



OiiM— 'i-it^c^cxjasr-i'NccoirMr-t^osoowi^XiOMoot^m 

(MC5rHOO»-tu35000«'^U7HMr-iT?HCOO^iOaiOOCOrHCOCOCO 
M C<i ^i r-i CO N C^ (N CJ e^' CO e^ C4 CJ CO CO <N c4 Oi i-i !N CJ r-i cJ ci 



§s 


geiii^igiis 


iissiiiiisei 


1^ 


463 

679 
497 
500 
499 
449 
412 
519 
, 320 
297 


mmmmmm 


{egS§8af5Sg25S^Sg§gg382S?ggSS 


■o^ 


co(Ni<icOTrOTjirj<-tococo 


co^co^^w^coc^^co 



4.-IOiCOC^COOOCOCO-^CO-^C^iCl:^cDCOiC(MC^--<CCr;»i-l^ 
.vCcriOiOrrco:OCC'Mi-lC^lCOCC(M'rj*iOCOCOTf^OO^CJO 

5^to«3>Ci-icoco^as'*j'cDTj<ocoTt<0'^i>i>oaiGoccoo 




62 



Monday. April 9, 1906. 

The House having under consideration bills relating to the District 
of Columbia — 

Mr. MORRELL said : 

Mr. Speaker : In taking up the question of receipts in the Dis- 
trict of Coluuibia, I beg to say that this is the last of the sub- 
jects in connection with the government of the District of Colum- 
bia to which I shall call the attention of the House, and I shall 
endeavor to show that while as a whole the amount received from 
the various licenses, etc., is fairly large, yet there are many in- 
stances where the receipts of the District could be increased and 
a certain amount of economy practiced. I might add that these 
remarlvs which I have made from time to time calling attention 
to what I consider certain abuses in the District has not been 
for the sake of querulous criticism, but, by calling attention to 
them, if possible to bring about a better state of affairs in the 
District. 

I may also state that in my remarks I have dealt wholly with 
the subject and not with the individual. 

In the matter of receipts for licenses, privileges, etc., Wasji- 
ington fails to make as good a showing as other cities of similar 
grade. Much has been said about differences of condition be 
tween Washington and other cities as an excuse for the greater 
expenditures of Washington. This, as I have said, is a very 
cheap way to avoid the real issue. The District of Columbia, 
considered as a municipality, covers an area of about 64 square 
miles, much of which is agriclutural and swamp land, and the 
additional expense of governing such area is not correspondingly 
equal to the expense of governing an equally crowded area. 

For example, Buffalo police precincts run from 0.72 to 10.07 
square miles each ; Chicago has three times the area and pays 
but 50 per cent more ; Philadelphia has twice the area, but ex- 
pends but little more than 50 per cent more. The excessive ex- 
penditures of Washington are not chargeable to conditions so 
much as to extravagant management and inharmonious adjust- 
ments. 

Thus the management of market houses seems to be faulty 
when all receipts from these sources in Washington are com- 
pared with the audited statements of the fiscal officers of other 
cities. I give the figures: 
7021 



63 



Comparative statement of receipts and expenditures of 

im. 


market 


houses. 


City. 


Receipts. 


Expendi- 
tures. 


Ex. 

cess. 


Washington 


811,9.54 
58, 973 
41,622 
6.5, 570 

110,5.52 
56,652 
32, .546 
36,800 


$6,240 
25, 231 
23, 737 

13, .586 
12,149 
7,304 

27, 288 


S5 714 




33, 742 


Newark 


17,886 


Pittsburg . 




Boston 


96 966 


Buflfalo 


44, 403 


Cleveland 


9,572 





" No expense stated. 

Newark, a smaller city, has a net excess of receipts of reve- 
nue over Washington of about 300 per cent; Baltimoi'e exceeds 
Washington more than 800 per cent; Boston, more than 1,700 
per cent; Buffalo, nearly 800 per cent, and St. Louis nearly 400 
per cent. The gross market receipts of Washington are out of 
all proportion to those of other cities, and suggest a weakness 
that should be remedied. 

In the same way the dramshop licenses seem to show a some- 
what poorer revenue-producing power. 

Revenue from dramshop lieenses, 190!i. 

Washinston $415,985 

St. Louis 1,267,507 



Buffalo (1902) 

Boston 

Pittsburg: 

Baltimore 

Cleveland 

Cincinnati 

Detroit (one-half to the State). 
Newark (1902) 



560, 995 
1, 000, 000 
508, 712 
575, 364 
751, 004 
418, 256 
648, 000 
360, 200 

St Louis and Boston, about twice the size of Washington, take 
In, respectively, three and three and one-half times as much as 
Washington. The revenue should be greater, and if the license 
is not high enough Congress should remedy the defect. If we 
must have saloons, let them contribute to the revenue in pro- 
portion to those of St. Louis and Boston. The liquor licenses of 
Washington ought to yield about $650,000. The license is $800 
per annum and the traffic will safely stand $1,000. 

Chicago charges a flat $1,000 license fee. Without going into 
the ethical questions of whether high license tends to destroy 
an immoral business or whether the business itself is immoral, it 
seems that a $1,000 license has proven itself a good business 
standard and not grievously burdensome to small dealers. A 
tax of $3 a day is not a heavy tax upon a business whose margin 
of profits is abnormally great. A graduated license tax be- 
ginning with $1,000 for small dealers and increasing to $2,000 
for large establishments would possibly be more equitable, more 
regulatory, and a better revenue producer. 
7021 



64 

The wholesale liquor license tax is $300 per annum and that 
of the brewers $200. It appears to me that each of these should 
be not less than $500. Private bankers are charged $500, and 
their business is no more profitable than that of brewers or 
wholesale liquor dealers. Distillers and rectifiers are also 
charged $250, and these, it is suggested, should also pay $500. 
For the year ending October 31, 1905, the barroom licenses of 
Washington numbered 518 and the wholesale liquor licenses 
numbered 136. For the license year beginning November 1, 
1905, 515 barroom applications were recorded and 134 whole- 
sale liquor applications. It will thus be seen that the business 
year by year sustains about the same proportion, and it is be- 
lieved that these proportions would not be changed materially 
by the higher license tax indicated. 

The total receipts from licenses in 1904, other than barroom, 
were $110,490. A comparison of this amount with the amounts 
received by other cities for licenses, franchises, and privileges, 
other than barroom licenses, will show that this feature of 
revenue has been underworked in the District of Columbia to 
the advantage of those holding the franchises and special 
privileges : 

Washington : 

All other licenses $110, 496 

Franchise taxes, street railways 44, 292 

Cleveland 117,567 

Cincinnati : 

Licenses 134,292 

Excise taxes, street railways 230, 045 

Excise taxes, gas and electric-light companies 4, 179 

St. Louis 837, 653 

Franchises 266, 440 

Baltimore : 

Franchises 444, 306 

Licenses 90,313 

ton : 

Street railways , 360, 000 

Dog taxes 25, 000 

Excise tax, street railway 65, 000 

Whisky and other liquors pay about six-sevenths of the total 
license taxes of Washington, and the same is approximately 
true of all other cities, except St. Louis, where a far better ad- 
justment of all licenses has been made, and with seeming suc- 
cess. The various schedules of license rates now applicable to 
Washington seem to be unwisely adapted, to be discriminative 
in their nature, and are therefore poor revenue producers. Fol- 
lowing are a few marked instances : 

LICENSES FOB SIGHT-SKEING CAHS. 

The Seeing Washington cars that run daily upon the street 
railway tracks of AVashington charge the public 50 cents a trip 
upon all cars. Their license tax is $6 per annum for each car 
not exceedng ten passengers, and $12 a car for those exceeding 
ten passengers. Th's would make a daily license rate of from 
7021 



65 

2 to 4 cents a car. The license rates should be from $25 to $50 
per annum. And the automobile cars for seeing Washington 
should pay twice these rates. To charge a merry-go-round $12 
per week, or $G24 per annum, and these cars from $6 to $12 per 
annum, is to discriminate against amusement for the children 
in fiivor of sight-seers from abroad. 

Why land-improvement companies should pay $50 per annum 
and investment associations $100 per annum is hard to under- 
stand. Pawnbrokers at $100 and note brokers at $100 are in 
sad contrast with private banks at $500 per annum. Businesses 
that charge 3 per cent a month should pay a $500 license, if they 
can not be altogether prevented. 

INSPECTION EXPENDITDKE. 

The appropriations by Congress for inspection of all kinds in 

1904 amounted to $139,402, itemized as follows : 

Inspector of building $2, 7.50 

Principal assistant 1, 600 

Five assistant inspectors 6, 000 

Five assistant inspectors 5, 000 

Temporary inspectors 2, 400 

Total building inspectors 17,750 

Inspector of plumbing 2,000 

Seven assistant inspectors 8, 400 

Six assistant inspectors 6. 000 

Five members plumbing board 1, 500 

Total plumbing 17,900 

Inspector of fuel 1, 500 

One assistant 1,100 

Total fuel 2,600 

Inspector of licenses 1, 200 

One assistant 1,000 

Total licenses 2, 200 

Four inspectors, personal-tax board 4,800 

Inspector of streets 1, 200 

Two assistants 2,400 

Inspector of aspbalt 2, 400 

Two assistants 1,500 

Total streets 7,500 

Inspector of gas 2,000 

One assistant 1,000 

One assistant 840 

Total gas _ 3^40 

Inspector of sewers 1, 200 

General inspector 1, 300 

Total sewers 2,500 

Two inspectors of property 1, 872 

Inspector of material 1, 200 

Inspector 1, 500 

Insf-^ctor 1,200 

Two insnectors 2, 400 

7021 5 



G6 

One inspector -.^rnn 

Oue inspector 1. •^"O 

Total inspectors _ _Ji^22. 

Inspector of bridges 1- ^^^ 

Four inspectors, street sweeping ^f'S^R 

Ten inspectors, street sweeping -^i' SSx 

Three inspectors, street sweeping 2, 700 

Total, street sweeping 18, 500 

Six inspectors, stables J. 200 

Two Inspectors, stables 1, 800 

One inspector, stables Uio 

Total, stables 9,975 

Two electrical inspectors 2. 400 

Inspector of lamps i- !il!^! 

Three assistants ^, 700 

Total, lamps ^>. 700 

Chief Inspector, health 1, 800 

Thirteen sanitary and food inspectors 15, 500 

One sanitary inspector 1, 800 

One sanitary inspector ^' i9.n 

One marine-prodncts inspector 1, 200 

Four sanitary inspectors 4, 000 

Three sanitnry inspectors 2, 700 

Traveling expense, inspectors 1, 200 

Total, health 28. 900 

Four inspectors, charity 2, 880 

Ohe inspector, charity 900 

Traveling expense 400 

Total, charity 4, 180 

Inspector, child caring 480 

One inspector, water 1. 200 

Eight inspectors, water 6, 400 

One Inspector, water 000 

Total, water 8,500 

Total, inspection 139,400 

It is hard to turn around in Washington without running into 
an inspector. Inspectors of buildings, plumbing, fuel, licenses, 
personal property, streets, asphalt, gas, sewers, property, mate- 
rial, smoke, street sweeping, stables, electricity, lamps, health, 
food, marine products, horse diseases, charity, child caring, and 
water. 

There are 120 men on the rolls as inspectors, drawing a total 
compensation of $139,000. 

Inspector of buildings is very important, but why should 
Buffalo pay $8,800 for this work and Washington $17,750? 
Pittsburg pays but $11,500, and Boston uot quite as much as 
Washington. 

Washington pays $17,900 for plumbing inspection, and St. 
Louis $13,502. Other cities seem to prosper very well without 
7021 



67 

any expenditure whatever for this purpose. Why pay fourteen 
men $1G,400 for no apparent service? 

Citizens of Washington tell me that they have lived eighteen 
months in a house without ever seeing an inspector. Others 
say that these gentlemen come around once in a while and act 
very arbitrarily. They come right in exactly as if they owned 
the premises. They go to the spigots and to closets. They 
write out a military order which contains a threat of cessation 
of water if certain things are not done. There is no appeal, and 
there is no way of determining whether it is a case of graft or 
bad plumbing. The day after the call it is not difficult to find 
plumbers all over the city with pockets full of these orders. It 
is a principle of law that a man's house is his castle and regu- 
lations which defy this principle are autocratic and wrong. It 
is unwise to put this amount of power in the hands of any one 
man. It opens the way to graft. Owners and occupiers of 
property have some honesty and pride, and may be depended 
upon to keep their plumbing in repair. Nine-tenths of the 
plumbing repair in Washington is done by owners and occu- 
piers without notice from any inspectors. The majority of 
cities have no such officers and those that do pay no such sala- 
ries. Buffalo gets along with six plumbing inspectors and pays 
them $7,400. This $17,900 might be very well omitted from the 
list of appropriations without injury to any one. All spies are 
abominable, but spies that force their way into private houses 
when the male members are away and without any antecedent 
notice are odious in the highest degree. I had investigations 
made in New York, Baltimore, and Philadelphia to ascertain 
what they paid for fuel inspection. I was surprised to find out 
that these cities had no such officers as fuel inspectors, and the 
auditors of other cities fail to itemize such an account. Of 
what use are they? Washington pays out $2,G00 for this pur- 
pose and it is of no advantage to any one save the inspectors. 
Nor is there any use for an inspector and assistant inspector 
for licenses. No other city boasts of this luxury, and this 
$2,200 may be saved without injury to anyone. 

xue four inspectors of the personal-tax board are unneces- 
sary. Buffalo assesses her property with three assessors and 
pays them $11,500 in all. Washington has six assessors draw- 
ing $17,000 between them, and it is hard to understand the 
reason for the payment of $4,800 for four inspectors for the 
personal-tax board. 

There are three inspectors of streets drawing $3,600, besides 
a superintendent of streets, whose pay is $2,000, and a superin- 
tendent of county roads, whose pay is $1,500. In other cities 
the street superintendents do their own inspecting, and there 
7021 



68 

appears to be no valid reason for the additional positions in 
Washington. There is also an inspector of asphalt, at $2,400, 
and an assistant, at $1,500. Thus, $7,500 are paid for street 
inspection in Washington and no real service performed. There 
are three inspectors of gas, drawing $3,840 per annum. What 
their duties are no one appears to know. The gas company fur- 
nishes a poor article of gas despite their inspection and charges 
the people a high price for it. If we must have gas inspectors, 
let the Commissioners select them and cast their pay on the gas 
company. This company places meters in every house using 
gas. If the user is not proud of his meter and asks for a test 
he will get it. A man comes to the house and goes through cer- 
tam genuflections. If he says the meter is all right you pay 
his bill. If he says the meter is all wrong the company pays 
his bill. As the company sends him to you, the meter is gen- 
erally found to be virtuous, and you are mulcted for the fee. 
The meter registers gas burned whether the jets are lighted or 
not, and when you complain you are told that the meter showed 
no gas used, but that the office charged it up anyhow by a 
system of averages that is good for the gas company whether 
it gratifies the public or not. The gas company of Washington 
has a good thing and should pay for all gas inspection. 

The sewer inspection of Washington is moderate. It only 
costs $2,500 and two men to do the work. There ar^ two in- 
spectors of jn-opei-ty, drawing $1,872, and one inspector of 
material, at $1,200. What these gentlemen do I can not tell, 
but as other cities seem to exist comfortably without them, T 
favor their abolition here. Then there are six plain inspectors, 
without any other title, drawing $7,500 in all. It is possible 
that these six inspectors are the inspectors of all the other in- 
spectors. They may easily be dispensed with. The bridge in- 
spector, at $1,200, is not a bad feature if he has anything to do. 

But the greatest joker of the lot is the inspection of the street- 
sweeping department. Seventeen men are annually employed 
to inspect the street-sweeping business, and they draw $18,500. 
Washington paid out in 1904 the sum of $179,712 for sweeping/ 
and cleaning streets, avenues, and alleys. The inspectors re- 
ceived nearly 11 per cent of this fund. Now, in all serious- 
ness, what reason is there for paying street-sweeping inspectors 
$1,100 or $1,200 per annum each when good men may be had by 
the scoi'e, fully equipped mentally, morally, and physically for 
the work, at from $40 to $50 per month? What is the execu- 
tive office for if not to enforce the street-cleaning contract? 
And why should the Commissioners call in seventeen men to 
inspect a work that in other municipalities is done by the 
executive office? The appropriation in 1905 for the executive 
7021 



69 

office, as appears from the statutes of the United Stat?s for 
the third session of the Fifty-eighth Congress, page 884, was, 
"in all, $76,299." In addition to this the next paragraph 
appropriates for other expenses of the exccvitive office, " in ail, 
$20,300," or a total of $90,599. To this the item of $18,.^)00 for 
street-sweeping inspection should be added, for the reason that 
a part of the Commissioners' duties is to see that contracts 
made by them are properly performed. If this duty is cast on 
seventeen other men the expense involved should be charged to 
the executive department. But Washington has no need for 
these officers, and this $18,500 should be eliminated from the 
account. Granting the necessity for the offices, the pay can be 
reasonably reduced 50 per cent. We are glad to notice that the 
Commissioners report that this feature of inspection is to be 
abolished. 

There are nine inspectors of stables, drawing $9.9?5. Six of 
these men get $1,200 apiece. There are good men— good young 
men— who would be glad to do this work at $60 a month, and 
that is all it is worth. The common decency of re-spectability 
would lead good citizens to keep their stables clean, and nine 
young Americans of vigor and stamina at $60 a month each 
would, like Hercules of old. see to it that the stables of such 
Washingtonians as prefer to follow in the footsteps of Augeas 
should not only be cleaned, but kept clean all the while. 

Why pay out $2,400 for two electrical inspectors and $3,700 
for four lamp inspectors? The inspectors get $0,100 and the 
repair men $5,540. Let us have more repairs at better pay and 
less inspection at lower pay. 

Health inspection is something that appeals to the wisdom of 
all men, and a certain amount of it is proper. But Washing- 
tion seems to have an excess of inspection and only an aver- 
age of health. There are twenty-foUi.' health inspectors in this 
city, drawing $27,700 per annum, besides using about $1,200 as 
traveling expenses for junketing trips to outside dairy farms. 
Baltimore gets an equally good inspection for $11,707 and Buf- 
falo for $14,715. 

Even the charities of Washington cost $2,880 for inspection. 
Why pay four good, clean, honest men $720 each a year for 
ferreting out poverty? Where are the ministers of the city? 
Where are the humane societies? It seems to me that these 
people are as credible and as honest as any set of inspectors, 
and they may always be relied upon to do the best of charitable 
work. 

Then, while stable inspectors get $1,200 a year, the inspector 
for the child-caring charities is paid the munificent salary of 
$480 a year. If nine men are worth $9,975 for stable inspection, 
7021 



this child-caring inspector ought to be worth about $4,000 a 
year. Give this inspector $1,000 at the least and cut down the 
stable contingent to $60 a month. 

Then, notwithstanding the $17,900 paid nineteen plumbing in- 
spectors, $8,500 more must be given to ten other men as water 
inspectors and an unknown amount for smoke inspection. 

AUDITING DISTRICT ACCODNTS. 

From volume 1, page 20, of the Commissioners' Report for 
1905, it appears that books and i-ecords of the Wasliington Asy- 
lum, the Industrial Home School, the office of the inspector of 
gas and meters, the office of the superintendent of the bathing 
beach, the offices of the several market masters, the office of the 
pound master, the accounts of collateral received at the several 
police precinct stations, the accounts kept in the police depart- 
ment of various funds and moneys received in the nature of 
trust funds, and of a number of other institutions and estab- 
lishments connected with the District government involving 
money transactions have not been made the subject of period- 
ical examinations by the auditing department. The auditor's 
office is a most important one, but if it is not auditing and ex- 
amining the institutions of the District which handle money it 
is not performing its most important function. The Commis- 
sioners say that the present clerical force is inade^iuate and 
ask for a greater amount of help. A greater economy in other 
lines of expenditure will make possible the complete develop- 
ment of this most important office. The last Congress author- 
ized the employment of fifteen persons in that office and appro- 
priated $23,750. It also provided for five other clerks, at an ag- 
gregate expenditure of $5,500 ; in all, twenty persons, at a charge 
of $29,250. This would seem to be enough to do all the work 
required of the office, and to do it well. The auditor receives 
no larger salary than should be paid for his work. The prices 
paid for other clerks are higher in proportion to Buffalo 
prices. The Buffalo salaries are: Comptroller, $4,000; deputy 
comptroller, $2,000 ; chief bookkeeper, $1,600 ; assistant book- 
keeper, $1,100; three assistant bookkeepers, at $900; warrant 
clerk, $1,100 ; assistant, $900 ; bond and insurance clerk, $1,100 ; 
local accounts clerk, $1,000; statement clerk, $1,000; recording 
clerk, $900 ; local tax-roll clerk, $900 ; markets accounts clerk, 
$800; tax-sale clerk, $1,500; three assistants, at $1,000; coun- 
tersigning clerk, $900; five clerks, $900; stenographer, $720; 
in all, twenty-six good clerks and officers for $29,720. If Buffalo 
can retain twenty-six good men for $29,720 Washington ought 
certainly to retain twenty-five men in minor positions, and a 
reorganization would produce good re!<ults. 
7021 



71 



RfiSUMfi REVENUE. 

From Bulletin No. 20 of the Department of Commerce and 
Labor it appears that Washington surpassed many first-class 
cities in the aggregate of corporate receipts for 1903. This ap- 
pears fi'om the following table, taken from page 452 of that re- 
port. 

Aggregate corporate receipts. 

Washington $10, 300, 266 

Pittsburg 10, 947, 188 

Cincinnati! 8, 4:U, 450 

Baltimore 9, 002, 082 

Buffalo 7, OIH. 140 

San Fi-ancisco 6, 470, 545 

Milwaukee 4, 608. 257 

Detroit l 6, 284, 102 

New Orleans 4, 541, 058 

Receipts from general revenues. 
Washin-ton $9, 360, 149 



Baltimore 

Cleveland 

Buffalo 

San Francisco- 

Pittsburg 

Cincinnati 

Milwaukee 

Detroit 

New Orleans _. 



7, 222, 784 
6, 0S3, 107 

5, .•!63, 000 
6,087, 171 

6. 2:!2, 000 
4, 230, 000 

3, 702. 000 
4,014,000 

4, 164, 000 

The difference between the aggregate corporate revenues and 
the aggregate general or ordinary revenues is less in Washing- 
ton than in any other city of its class, owing to the fact that the 
United States pays one-half the estimated expenses allowed by 
Congress. 

RfiSCMfi EXPENDITURE. 

It has already been shown by me that the expenses for nearly 
all municipal purposes are greater in Washington than in cities 
of larger size. This is emphasized by extracts from Bulletin No. 
20, as shown in the following tables : 



statement 


of expenditures by cities for municipal purposes 

1. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION. 




City. 


Expendi- 
ture. 


Per 
capita. 


Wasliiiigton 


5255,368 
477,222 
264,689 
311,873 
302,717 
233, 151 


JO 91 






Clevel and 


64 


Pittsburg 


90 






Milwaukee 


74 









2. COURTS. 








$154, 102 
• 244,298 
37,090 
25,032 
164,140 
42,816 
37,411 
144,210 


80.53 
46 


Baltimore , 










San Francisco 


46 




...■.■ 




Detroit 


12 


New Orleans • 


48 







72 



statement of expenditures by cities for municipal purposes- 

3. POLICE DEPARTMENT. 



-Continued 



City. 


Expendi- 
ture. 


Per 
capita. 




$859,218 
1,010,739 
530, 519 
827,838 
993, 8R2 
604,903 
619,045 
348, 501 
583, 940 
237,252 


«2.93 




1.90 




1.28 




2.17 




2.79 


Pittsburg 


1.75 




1.86 




1.11 




1.89 




.79 









4. FIRE DKPART.MENT." 






Washington 


8359,897 
533,790 
611,751 
544,192 
619,045 
462, 061 
587, 090 


$1.23 




1.00 




1.47 




1.58 




1.86 




1.48 




1.90 







5. HEALTH DEPART .VIENT.* 





867,697 
95,822 
75, 982 
36,682 
52, 895 
53,157 
50, 932 
56,380 


SO. 23 




.18 




.18 


Buffalo - 


.10 




.17 




.16 




.16 




.19 









6. PUBLIC CHARITIES AND COKKEC-VIONS. 






1988,230 

300,262 

6,277,065 

1,300,0.51 

661,079 

1,844,070 

472, 000 

230, 112 

126,421 

413,690 

154,539 


«3.37 




.16 




1.69 




.95 




1.08 




3.10 


Baltimore 


.89 


Cleveland 


.55 




.33 




1.16 


Pittsburg 


.46 









7. HIGHWATS.<^ 








31,001,298 
638, 294 
682, 234 
647, 753 
616, 860 
718, 302 
528, 888 
627,061 
265, 597 


$3.41 




1.20 




1.64 




1.70 




1.73 




2.08 


Cincinnati 


1.50 


Milwaukee 


2.00 




.86 







« This department asks less by way of appropriations than any one m 
the District, and seems to be the only one not dominated by extrava- 
gance. 

This department is out of all proportion in expenditure. 

•^ The expenditure for highways in the District of Columbia Is not 
justified by any principle of municipal authority. 
7021 



73 



statement of expenditures by cities for municipal purposes — Continued. 

8. SANITATION. 



c*. 


Expendi- 
ture. 


Per 
capita^ 




«474,061 
391,281 
320, 475 
344,171 
422,251 
344,089 
26 ', 703 
257,769 


$1.62 




.74 




.77 




.90 


Pittsburg 


1.22 


Cincinnati 


1.03 




.87 




.83 







9. PUBLIC RECREATION. 





$139,926 
120, 280 
114,698 
46, 414 
70, 233 
38, 189 


$0.48 




.29 




.33 




.14 


Milwaukee 


.22 




.13 







10. SCHOOLS. 



City. 


Aggre- 
gate. 


Per 
capita. 


Teachers. 


Per 
capita. 




SI, 690, 371 
1,848,778 
1,651,403 
1,333,398 
1,737,156 
1,159,293 
1,079,738 
1,098,632 


$6.76 
3.48 
4.33 
3.74 
5.04 
3.46 
3.45 
3.55 


$965,995 
1,048,840 
925,636 
1,021,997 
772,317 
8^6, 284 
644, 476 
765,141 


$3.29 




1.98 




2.43 




2.87 


Pittsburg 


■2. 24 




2.66 




2.06 


Detroit 


2.47 







Besides this, Wasliiiigtou pays a higher per capita for the ag- 
gregate of schools than any other city of the same or greater 
size, except New Yorlc and Boston. 

She also pays a higher per capita for teacliers than Chicago, 
Philadelphia, St. Louis, Baltimore, and Cleveland. 



c„v. 


All other 
expenses. 


Per 

capita. 




$41.5, 116 
400, 936 
268, 003 
211,388 
192, 281 
259, 822 


$1.42 




1.05 




.73 




.64 




.61 




.84 







Besides paying a higher per capita than any city of greater 
size except New York. Boston, Cleveland, and Pittsburg, library 
expenses are greater than in St. Louis, Baltimore, Cleveland, 
Buffalo, San Francisc-o. Milwaukee, and Detroit, without the ma- 
terial or the facilities of these cities. 

Thus, in nearly every respect the expenses of Washington are 
greater than those of, larger cities equally well governed. Such 
a condition is unfortunate and seems to demand the remedial 
arm of legislative curtailment. 
7021 



74 



Monday, May 28, 190b. 

The House being in the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union and having under consideration various bills in relation 
to the District of Columbia — 

Mr. MORRELL said : 

Mr. Chairman : Shortly after I presented my last speech on 
the subject of expenditures in the District of Columbia, on 
April 9, I was considerably surprised at an editorial to which 
my attention was called, which appeared in one of the leading 
newspapers in Washington, picking up an omission which I had 
made in a general heading concerning the expenses of the 
libraries in Washington, and my not having included in that 
heading "Art galleries, museums," etc., such as was included in 
the heading in the table of the Census Bulletin No. 20, which 
I had made part of my remarks, and which could have been 
easily referred to for an explanation. 

The evident intention of this editorial was to create an 
impression that I had knowingly made a false or misleading 
statement as to library expenses, and that as a consequence all 
the other figures were either false or misleading. 

Strange as it may seem, not a single line of criticism was 
directed against a single figure presented, except the single 
item of library expenses. The issue was with the statement 
that library expenses were greater in Washington than in eight 
named cities. In my speech I referred to Census Bull tin No. 
20 as authority for the long tabular statement I spread out in 
my remarks, and anyone having this page of the bulletin open 
before him would see at once that the words " library ex- 
penses " were an abbreviation for the caption " Payments for 
expenses of libraries, art galleries, museums, etc." The other 
figures were not denied, a proof that page 47G of Census Bul- 
letin No. 20 had been consulted by the writer of the article ; 
but the words " library expenses " were seized upon as the 
basis of an editorial on the assumption that the value of all 
statistics must be measured by their weakest aspect. 

Not being aware of the existence in Washington of any art 
galleries, museums, etc., under the general acceptation of the 
definition of those terms, that were maintained at the expense 
of the District, I did not give them much consideration until 
the attempt was made to prove that I had apparently know- 
ingly made a misleading statement. 

On a closer inspection of Census Bulletin No. 20 I found that 
the total of $135,433 under the heading of " Payments for ex- 
penses of libraries, art galleries, museum^:, etc.," for Washing- 
7021 



75 

ton, found on page 476, Table 44, were on page 241, Table 21, 
subdivided as follows: 

Libraries : 

Salaries and wages $19,266 

Ali other 30,557 

And under art galleries, museums, etc. (in this same table) 85,610 

As I just said, not being aware of the existence of any art 
galleries, museums, etc., in Washington, maintained by the Dis- 
trict, I wrote to the Director of the Census requesting to be 
advised what art galleries, museums, etc., there were that were 
included under this item of $85,610, and received the following 
reply : 

Department of Commerce and Labor, 

boreau of the census, 
Washington, D. C, June 11, 1906. 
Hon. Edward de V. Morrell, 

Chairman Committee on the Militia, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. O. 
Dear Sir : In reply to your communication of June 8, In which you 
ask for information regarding the item appearing in Census Bulletin 
No. 20, page 241, Table 21, Group 2, which shows that the city of 
Washington had expended for art galleries, museums, etc., under " all 
other expenses," $85,610, I beg to say that this amount represents the 
District expenditure for maintaining the Zoological Park. In that 
year it was impossible, from the books of the District, to readily dis- 
tinguish between salaries and miscellaneous expenses, and in accord- 
ance with the text of Bulletin No. 20, relating to Table 21, the total 
payment was included under "all others." 

Very respectfully, yours, S. N. D. North, Director. 

I might call attention to the statement in the letter from 
Director North that " it was impossible from the books of the 
Di-strict to readily distinguish between salaries and miscel- 
laneous expenses." 

Nevertheless, even admitting that I was in error as far as 
including the total amount of $135,000, as shown in Table 44, 
and not separating the items as shown in Table 21, and further 
clarified by the letter from the distinguished Director of the 
Census, I have since taken some pains to inquire into the actual 
library expenses in the District, with the following result : 

In the first place the words " Library expenses," as used by 
me, were general ; the editor in his answer made them special. 
Library expenses, as used by me in my speech, would include 
the entire expenditure made by the Government for libraries in 
the District of Columbia ; the editor limits it to the free public 
library of the city of ^Yashington, and then further limits it to 
expenses for general maintenance. 

Congress in the appropriation act of 1901-2 made an appro- 
priation for the Free Public Library of Washington of $27,800 
for the year ending June 30, 1903, and $36,280 for the year end- 
ing June 30, 1904. These appropriations were made for salaries 
and the purchase of books, but do not in any sense comprise all 
7021 



76 

the expenditure made during those years for the Free Public 
Library of Washington. On September 30, 1904, Mr. Theodore 
W. Noyes, president of the library trustees, called attention to 
the fact that Mr. Carnegie had made an additional gift during 
the year 1903 of .$25,000 to furnish and decorate the interior of 
the new building. Mr. Carnegie had already given $350,000 
for the erection of the building. Congress had given its site and 
$10,000 in money for grading of the grounds, and the Commis- 
sioners of the District had regraded, curbed, and repaved the 
south sidewalk. 

Moreover, no account is taken of moneys expended upon the 
Congressional Library, the departmental libraries, and all ex- 
penditure made for purposes other than what he designed to 
include under the words " general maintenance." 

The Congressional Library is open to the public, as will be 
seen from the following figures taken from the Librarian's re- 
port for the year 1903 : 

Readers 163, 182 

Readers on Sundays 2.3, 142 

Books issued in reading room 336,12.3 

Books issued on Sundays 43,163 

This Library is open to all the people of the city of Washing- 
ton and elsewhere on every day of the year, except legal holi- 
days and Sundays, from 9 a. m. to 10 p. m., and on Sundays 
from 2 p. m. to 10 p. m. It has been open to the public on Sun- 
days since September 14, 1902. It is a great library, and the fig- 
ures taken from the Librarian's Report of 1903 show that it has 
a tremendous clientage. It is open alike to the rich and the 
poor, to the high and the low, and is a public library in every 
sense of the term, except that the boolvs are not permitted to 
be taken from the building. The expense of this great Library 
is very great, and, as its principal advantages go to the great 
public of the city of Washington, is it fair in discussing library 
expenses to exclude those appropriated for this institution and 
limit it to appropriations made for the Free Public Library of 
the city of Washington? 

Appropriations made by Congress for the year 1903 for the 

Congressional Library were as follows : 

Gener.nl administration .$16, 140 

Reading rooms 47,640 

Periodicals 9, 620 

Maps 6, 580 

Music 6, 200 

Total 86, 180 

In addition to these expenses, which are certainly chargeable 
to library expenses for the public, there were other appropria- 
7021 



77 

tlons mado which from their nature should be divided between 

the public and the special interests involved. These additional 

appropriations for 1903 were: 

Cataloguing and shelving $S7, 040 

Custody of building 72, ()05 

Law 7, 700 

Documents 5, 280 

Manuscripts 5, 7G0 

Total 178, 385 

or a grand total of $264,565 for the use of the Congressional 
Library for the year 1903. 

In addition to this, there are qhite a number of departmental 
libraries sustained by the Government for the use of Govern- 
ment employees, from which booivs may be taken to the homes 
of the employees. The number of Government employees in 
Washington forms a very considerable part of the total popula- 
tion of the city, and the existence of these libraries, circulating 
as they do, carries library privileges to a very large part of the 
public, and the expense for their maintenance falls, quite prop- 
erly, under the term " Library expenses." 

Taking all these expenses together — for Congressional, for de- 
partmental, and for the Free Public Library of Washington — 
is not the statement true that the library expenses of the city 
of Washington are far greater than the same expenses for the 
cities named in my last public utterance? 

But it was not my intention in abbreviating the caption of 
Census Bulletin No. 20, as to payment for expenses of libraries, 
art galleries, museums, etc., to limit the discussion to libraries 
alone, and I should have made no further reference to it but 
for the effort made to cast unnecessary odium upon the figures 
presented by me. Even in their limited sense, library expenses 
are greater, as I have shown, in Washington than in other 
cities, and in the sense of the caption the expenses of libraries, 
art galleries, museums, etc., are greater, as I have already 
shown in my remarks to-day. 

It might be well to consider which set of authorities is better, 
the original reports of auditors for current years or the compi- 
lations of the Census for selected years. This may be answered 
by a further reference to the caption of Census Bulletin No. 20, 
" Payments for expenses of libraries, art galleries, museums, 
etc." In this caption reference is made to Table 21, page 241, 
of said bulletin. Referring to that page, we find the following 
analysis : 
Libraries : 

Salaries ,and wages $19, 266 

All other expenses 30, 557 

Total libraries. 49, 823 

7021 ~ 



78 

Art galleries, museums, etc. : 

Salaries and wages — --■• 

All other expenses $85,010 

Total art galleries and museums 85, 610 

The auditor of the District of Columbia, in his detailed state- 
ment of expenditures of the government of the District of Co- 
lumbia for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1903, gives the follow- 
ing statement of expenditure for the Free Public Library : 

Salaries of employees $16, 178 

Purchase of books 19,453 

Bindine- 325 

Contingent expenses 3,872 

Total library expenses 39, 828 

The Census authorities figure the expense at $49,823, while 
the auditor of the District makes that expense $39,828, or 
nearly $10,000 less than the compilation made by the Census 
authorities. 

The sundry civil appropriation bill for the year 1901-2 made 
an appropriation for the year ended June 30, 1903, to the 
National Zoological Parli of $90,000 for general maintenance 
and $10,000 additional for the construction of an elephant 
house; in all $100,000, one-half to be paid from the revenues 
of the District of Columbia and one-half from the Treasury of 
the United States. The auditor of the District of Columbia' 
in his detailed statement of expenditures for the year ended 
June 30, 1903, gave the expenditure for the National Zoological 
Parli at $98,790. 

The appropriation was $100,000; the auditor reports an ex- 
penditure of $98,790 ; the Census Bureau places it at $85,610. 

Is not the presumption in favor of the original matter con- 
tained in the report of the auditor rather than in any com- 
pilation made by the most careful board of compilers it is 
possible to have? 

Why should an appropriation made to the National Zoolog- 
ical Parii be included under the caption, " Payments for ex- 
penses of libraries, art galleries, museums, etc." when in the 
same classification as made by the same authorities, the Census 
Bureau, there is another caption, " Expenses for public recrea- 
tion?" The system of classification adopted by the Census 
authorities is very scientific, and the caption for public recrea- 
tion is analyzed into general expense, expense for parks, gar- 
dens, etc., expense for baths, bathing beaches, etc., expenses 
for celebrations and entertainments, and miscellaneous ex- 
penses. The expenses for the National Zoological Park would, 
I should think, logically fall under this caption and not under 
the caption, " Payments for expenses of libraries, art galleries 
museums, etc." 
7021 



T9 

The final action of this Congress upon the District. appropria- 
tion bill is not jet known, but the final action of this House 
has been tal^en, and I am glad to say that the figures indicate 
not only a large reduction over the amounts asked for by the 
Commissioners of the District of Columbia, but also only a very 
small addition to the amount appropriated at the last session 
of tlie Fifty-eighth Congress. 

The total amount appropriated for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1906, was $9,390,029. 

• The total amount recommended by the Secretary of the 
Treasury for the District of Columbia, according to Document 
No. 12, estimates ot appropriations required for the service of 
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1907, was $11,299,204. 

It is understood that the estimates of the Commissioners of 
the District of Columbia for the same period were much greater 
than those actually recommended by the Secretary of the 
Treasury. 

The total amount appropriated by this House under House 
bill 18198 for the year ending June 30, 1907, is approximately 
$9,822,994. 

Thus the appropriations made by this House at this session 
show a reduction of $1,470,270 approximately over the estimates 
submitted by the Secretary of the Treasury, and a still greater 
reduction over the estimate submitted by the Commissioners of 
the District of Columbia. 

The work of scrutinizing District expenditures with reference 
to the municipal expenditures of other cities of the same or 
larger size has, therefore, I trust, begun, though it is not 
claimed that it has in any sense reached its logical growth. 
There are still many schedules of detailed expenditure in the 
District of Columbia that are abnormally high, and that may be 
materially reduced without injury to any interest connected 
with the development of the District of Columbia as a great 
municipality, or that will in any sense detract from that pa- 
triotism which demands that Washington, the capital city of 
the country, shall be the model city for the whole country. But 
we must not forget that the country at large, while favoring 
the most generous expenditure of money for every real demand 
of Washington's development, will not countenance extravagant 
expenditures. 

Useless places must be eliminated; salaries beyond the merits 
of the men performing the service must be cut out; salaries 
paid clerks and inspectors in Washington m.ust be cut down to 
.something like equality with the salaries paid by other cities 
for the same service. 
7021 



80 

In this way, and in this way alone, may we hope to mal^e 
Washington great and beautiful and clear our skirts of claims 
of extravagance and misappropriation. The good work of in- 
vestigation and curtailment has been at least inaugurated, and 
it is left for future committees to make more careful examina- 
tions and to further reduce the unnecessary and extravagant 
expenditures of the District of Columbia. 

It must be borne in mind that the criticism which has from 
time to time been made by me was not aimed so much at the 
amount of money expended as at the extravagance in the man-- 
ner of expenditure. Were it the wish of the country at large I 
personally would be glad to see appropriated even double the 
amount of money which the present District bill carries, pro- 
vided it would be properly expended and bring about propor 
tionate results. 

The spirit of parsimony should not prevail as far as the ad 
vancement of Washington is concerned, being as it is the 
national capital, but the curtailment of extravagance in the 
management of the municipal government, functions of which 
are performed in other cities equally as well, if not better, at a 
much less expenditure, should receive, in my judgment, the care- 
ful attention of all the Members of this House. 

At the risk of being accused of repetition, but with the hope 
of impressing more forcibly figures which have, perhaps, 
already been presented, I will briefly review what seems to me 
to be the most important points heretofore touched upon, in- 
cluding tables taken from Census Bulletin No. 20. 

My first spaech, of February 14, 190G, dealt with comparisons 
between Washington, St. Louis, Baltimore, Buffalo, Pittsburg: 
Newark, N. J. ; Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Milwaukee, 
Philadelphia, Detroit, Louisville, and San PYancisco. In that 
speech I took the ordinary method of presenting expenditure 
by classifying it into gross and net expenditure, and under net 
or ordinary expenditure dealt with office expenses and expenses 
for the police department, fire department, extension and im- 
provement o^ streets, street cleaning, street repairing and light- 
ing, br dges and sewers, schools, charities, and corrections for 
the year 1904. I presented a series of tables carefully compiled 
from the reports of the auditors of these cities, being first-hand 
and the latest available reports, carefully differentiating each 
of these heads, and making a series of subheads showing the 
amounts paid for the subdivisions of each of these heads. 
Thus under extension and improvement of streets subdivisions 
were made showing comparative expenditure for extension and 
improvement; under street cleaning, the expense for cleaning 
proper was separated from the expense for collecting ashes and 

7021 -* 



81 

garbage; repairing was carefully separated from liglitins. niul 
bridges from sewers; in school expendituro a separation wa>^ 
made between salaries and money paid for buildings and 
supplies. 

By this method it was possible for any man, the truth of the 
figures being admitted, to reach a rational conclusion as to the 
comparative expenses of the cities named. It is always proper 
to deny the accuracy of figures, and to prove their inaccuracy 
by the substitution of others. It is possible in the presentation 
of great masses of figures, taken from a number of voluminous 
reports, to fall into error, and it is the right of every disputant, 
if error exists, to prove it from the record. But no such method 
was adopted by those who essayed to answer my speech, and the 
logical inference is that my figures were correct. In fact, the 
figures were admitted, but the deductions made from them 
denied, or the figures were admitted, but the method of their 
presentation was declared to be unfair. An effort was made to 
show that office expenditures in Washington were different from 
office expenditures elsewhere, and that no fair comparison be- 
tween them could be made; that as the Government paid half 
the expenses of the District of Columbia it was unfair to 
compare the valuations of Washington with the valuations of 
other cities ; the character of the Government of the District 
was so unique, having the threefold functions of a State, 
county, and city government, that no fair comparison could be 
made between it and other cities, etc. 

It will be seen from these answers that the truth of my fig- 
ures was not denied and that their force was parried by quib- 
bles and inconsequential averments. Thus, of what consequence 
is it to anybody, in a comparison of expenses between Washing- 
ton and another city, to say that the Government pays half the 
expenses and that a fair comparison demands either that the 
valuation be doubled or the expenditure cut in two? What 
had valuation to do with the figures quoted? I dealt with ex- 
penditure, and showed that the total net or ordinary expendi- 
ture of the city of Washington for the year 1904 was out of 
all proportion in extravagant outlay to the expenditures of 
other named cities. Does it make the expense any less to 
have the Government pay one-half of it? It does make the ex- 
pense less to the taxpayers of the city of Washington, but this 
is a matter of no consequence whatever, however, in a com- 
pp'-ntive statement of tne expenditures between cities. 

Zn March 16, 1906, I presented another speech showing the 
undervaluations and inequalities of assessment which obtained 
in tlie District of Columbia, and on March 22 another in which 
I paid particular attention to the answers of certain newspaper 
7021 6 



82 

criticisms, in which I showed that all the matters of avoidance 
specially set up were unfounded in fact and unworthy of seri- 
ous consideration. I also submitted a table taken from Bulle- 
tin 20, census statistics, shewing the total and per capita pay- 
ments for classified expenses for the year 1903. No attempt 
having been made to answer my statistics for the year 1904, 
except by the pleas in avoidance already referred to, and my 
critics having shifted the ground to 1903 and referred to Bulle- 
tin 20, census statistics for that year, I cheerfully met them 
upon their own ground and published two full pages of said 
bulletin which not only bore out the accuracy of my previous 
classifications, but also supported every figure presented therein. 
In that report it was shown that the expenses for general 
administration in Washington were greater than those of 
Milwaukee and Cleveland, and far greater in proportion than 
those of Detroit, Pittsburg, and Buffalo. That the expenses for 
courts were greater than those for New Orleans, Detroit, Mil- 
waukee, Cincinnati, Pittsburg, Buffalo, and Cleveland. In fact, 
almost four times as great as the greater number of these cities. 
That the expenses for the police department were greater than 
those of the larger cities New Orleans, Detroit, Milwaukee, 
Cincinnati, Pittsburg, Cleveland, or Buffalo. That the expenses 
for the health department were greater than those of New Or- 
leans, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, or Buffalo. These figures 
showed that the expenditures for public chnrities and correc- 
tions were from two to eighteen times greater than those of New 
Orleans, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Pittsburg, San Fran- 
cisco, Buffalo, Cleveland, Baltimore, St. Louis, and Chicago, be- 
ing excelled alone by New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. 
For public highways the expenditures were from two to four 
times as great as those of New Orleans, Detroit, Milwaukee, 
Cincinnati, Pittsburg, San Francisco, Buffalo, Cleveland, or 
Baltimore, and almost equal to those of Chicago, the expendi- 
ture for highways in Washington being $1,001,298, and in Chi- 
cago, $1,027,701. In the matter of public sanitation the ex- 
penses of Washington were very much greater than those of 
New Orleans, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Pittsburg, San 
Francisco, Buffalo, Cleveland, and Baltimore. For public recre- 
ation the expenditures of Washington exceeded New Orleans, 
Milwaukee, Cincinnati. Pittsburg, and Cleveland. In payments 
for schools Washington exceeded New Orleans, Milwaukee, Cin- 
cinnati, San I'rancisco. and Buffalo. These figures talcen from 
Bulletin 20 simply aggravated the disease. The claimed ex- 
travagance of my initial figures faded into insignificance when 
brought into juxtaposition with the figures of Bulletin No. 20, 
the authority upon which the criticisms were based. 
7021 



/ 



83 



The same objections might be made by me to the separate 
classification in Census Bulletin No. 20 as were made by the 
critics to the classifications in my original speech. But these 
would be but quibbles, as all classifications are subject to this 
kind of criticism. Census Bulletin No. 20 deals with " aggregate 
corporate exi^enses," and explains that term on page 27 of the 
volume. The bulletin also deals with corporate payments, and 
makes these payments include all payments for (1) general 
service. (2) municipal service, (3) municipal investment, (4) 
municipal industrial expenses; for (1) general and (2) com- 
mercial or special improvement outlays and for the reduction 
of debt. All of these I included under the shorter term " gross 
expenditure," and for 1904 showed that Washington expended 
more in this way than the six cities St. Louis, Boston, Balti- 
more, Buffalo, Pittsburg, and Newark, N. J. 

On page 446 of Census Bulletin No. 20 the aggregate corporate 
payments or gross expenditures for forty-nine cities are shown, 
from which I extract the following outlays, adding only the 
population of each of the cities for 1900 : 



• City. 


Popula- 
tion. 


Aggregate 
corporate 

payments. 


Per capita 
payments. 




278, 718 
508,857 
381,768 
352, 887 
342,782 
325,902 
321,616 
285, 315 
285,704 
287, 104 


810,843,620 
8, 442, 400 
9,904,321 
7,271,955 
6,855,163 
7,915,106 
11,875.111 
5,226,012 
6,000,442 
4,453,125 


$36.98 




15.89 


Cleveland 


23.87 


Buffalo 


19.07 




19.26 




23.77 


Pittsburg 


34.42 




16.70 




19.38 




14.81 







Thus of the fourteen cities having a population greater than 
Washington, Washington had a greater aggregate outlay than 
eight of them. Of the forty-nine cities on page 446 of said bul- 
letin, Washington had a greater outlay than forty-three of them, 
ami her per capita expenditure exceeded all of them save New 
York and Boston. 

I consider this a most extravagant showing. 

But suppose we look at the detailed heads of expenditure as 
set out in Bulletin No. 20. On page 446, under " Payments for 
general and municipal service expenditure," we find the follow- 
ing: 

Washington $C, 502, 475 

Cleveland — - 5, .561, 781 

Buffalo 5, 340, 749 

San Francisco 6, 172, 566 

Pittsburg 5. 463, 586 

Cincinnati 5, 178, 131 

Milwaukee 3, 457, 542 

Detroit 3, 819, 409 

New Orleans ^^1 3, 447, 913 

7021 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




Washington paid more than any one of the forty-nine cities on 
the page for this item, except New Yorlv, Chicago, Philadelpliia, 
St. Louis, Boston, and Baltimore. It will be noticed that Balti- 
more expended but a trifle more than Washington and that the 
aggregate expense of the item " Payments for general and mu- 
nicipal service expenditure " makes up more than three-fifths of 
the aggregate outlay or gross expenditure. 

On the same page, under caption " Outlays for municipal in- 
dustries," we have: 

Washington $1, 161, 187 

Chicago 919, 781 

St. Louis 494, 480 

Boston 1, l.-.S, 643 

Baltimore 224. 528 

Cleveland 908, 941 

Buffalo 6.5, 750 

Milwaukee 110, 693 

Detroit 492. 614 

New Orleans 6, 443 

Municipal industries cost more in Washington than in any of 
the forty-nine cities, except New York, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, 
and Memphis. 

On the same page, under caption " Other than municipal in 
dustries," we have : 

Washington $2, 198, 550 

Baltimore 637,669 

Buffalo 1,416, 728 

San Francisco 400,423 

Cincinnati 888,644 

Milwaukee 1, 335, 851 

Detroit 1, 301, 962 

New Orleans 655, 497 

Now, these three items, payments for general and municipal 
service expenditure, outlays for municipal industries, and out- 
lays for other than municipal industries, make up in their aggre- 
gate what I termed in my first speech " net " or " ordinary " 
expenditure, and which for 1904 I calculated to be $9,079,908. 

Collecting these three items, we have as the net or ordinary 

expenditure for 1903, according to Census Bulletin No. 20, the 

following: 

Payments for municipal-service expenses ?6, 502, 475 

Payments for municipal industries 1, 161, 337 

Payments for other industries 2,198,550 



Total net or ordinary expenses 9, 862, 362 

So that the vague criticism that my classification was too 
general, and therefore liable to be misleading, falls to the 
ground. The expenditure for the ordinary expenses of District 
government for 1904 under my classifications were less than 
those worked out by the census bulletin of 1903. The absolute 
verity of my classifications for comparative purposes is, there- 
fore, I consider, established, and all indirect criticism clearly 
out of place. 
7021 

o 



